I don't think that's surprising because the alternative would be that some people are able to predict the future. Whatever strategy one might figure out that works is long term destined to fail, as other people start using them. The only real way to make money there is by providing liquidity since it's a zero sum game. For the stock market this is not true because it's not zero sum, it grows over time.

There are some bets on prediction markets where the future is either already known or in the control of people who may be participating in the market. For example, when people bet on how long the next presidential briefing will be, it doesn't take a prophet to predict this, anyone who organizes said briefing can control it (at least with a very high probability).

So, the question becomes "what is the preponderence of such bets" and "how many people with control or knowledge of bet outcomes actually participate in the market" - not "can some people see the future of any bet better than others".

There is alternative to being “able to predict the future”, which is “I already know the future” or “I can change the future”

"predicting the future" and "correct analysis of all available information" often aren't all that different.

Yes, but the alternative (that some people are very good at forecasting) is also plausible. It's also useful to have a good prediction model and timely data sources when providing liquidity. We also find that some of the "biggest losers" also provide liquidity; they just aren't as good at it.

The stock market is arguably zero sum as well, just that directionally betting on the US has generally worked during the golden years of the US economy.

The stock markets of the world aren't a money printer.