B. Mayfield MORE Passing TDs than K. Cousins

R. White OVER OVER 40.5 Rushing Yards or records ANY TD

B. Irving OVER 44.5 Rushing Yards OR records ANY TD

B. Robinson OVER 69.5 Rushing Yards OR records ANY TD

T. Allgeier OVER 40.5 Rushing Yards OR records ANY Td

M. Evans OVER 59.5 Rec Yds OR records Rec TD

C. Godwin OVER 69.5 Rec Yards OR records Rec TD

C. Otton OVER 39.5 Rec Yards OR records a Rec TD

D. London OVER 69.5 Rec Yards OR records Rec TD

K. Pitts OVER 39.5 Rec Yards OR records Rec TD

D. Mooney OVER 49.5 Rec Yards OR records Rec TD

Will the winning teams margin of victory be between 1-6 points?

Will the Buccaneers Def record more TURNOVERS than Falcons Def?

Will the Buccaneers Def record more SACKS than Falcons Def?

Will either team score a defensive or special teams TD?

Falcons outscore the Buccaneers in the 2nd Half

Any team scores in the first 6 minutes of the game

Will any team score 3 straight times unanswered?

Will both teams score at least  20 points

Combined total touchdowns scored OVER 4.5

Have fun and remember to trade responsibly

Tampa Bay Buccaneers +1.5 @ Atlanta Falcons

New York Jets +2.5 @ Minnesota Vikings (London)

Baltimore Ravens -2.5 @ Cincinnati Bengals

Cleveland Browns +3 @ Washington Commanders

Indianapolis Colts +3 @ Jacksonville Jaguars

Arizona Cardinals +7.5 @ San Francisco 49ers

Green Bay Packers -3.5 @ Los Angeles Rams

Dallas Cowboys +2.5 @ Pittsburgh Steelers

New Orleans Saints +5 @ Kansas City Chiefs

Which teams will cover the spread in Week 5 of the 2024/25 NFL season? Spread lines taken from ESPN this week.

If there is a push, it will resolve as 50/50.

Let me know in the comments if you have any advice on how to improve this kind of a market 

(maybe closing off the market before the first game, so no in-play betting? and so on)

 - if there is enough interest, I will consider making it a Plus market.

Baltimore Ravens +2.50 @ Kansas City Chiefs

The 14th annual League of Legends World Championship will be held from September 25, 2024 to November 2, 2024.

This market will resolve to the winner of the tournament.  If the tournament is not completed by December 31, 2024, then the market will resolve to 

 category was used during the qualification phase when some teams had yet to qualify.  The market will never resolve to 

; however if a team is disqualified and replaced by another team, that new team will be added and be split out of Other.

The question will close at 1:00 AM CT on or before the morning of the first scheduled World Series game and will be resolved with results published at http://mlb.com/

The anticipated question resolution time is no later than 10:00 PM CT on the first day of the World Seriesif not earlier.

Resolves YES if GPT-5 is publicly released before Jan 1, 2025; resolves NO otherwise.

Update from March 18: If the next OpenAI flagship model deviates from the GPT-N naming scheme 

 that is going to be released from OpenAI (e.g. they completely changed the trajectory of their naming scheme) then I will count it as "GPT-5" regardless.

However, if the next flagship model is not called GPT-5 but still conforms to the OpenAI GPT-N naming scheme (e.g. GPT-4.5) 

there will eventually be a model called GPT-5

 that will be released (i.e. they are going to continue with the same naming scheme) then I will not count it as "GPT-5".

EG "make me a 120 minute Star Trek / Star Wars crossover". It should be more or less comparable to a big-budget studio film, although it doesn't have to pass a full Turing Test as long as it's pretty good. The AI doesn't have to be available to the public, as long as it's confirmed to exist.

[invalid answer] Multiple people e.g. a team from OpenAI

No one, the tweet was a joke or intended to attract advertisers without referring to someone specific

https://x.com/dwarkesh_sp/status/1826340260735058400

This market is specifically on whom the above tweet is referring to, regardless of whether the interview occurs.

If a large language models beats a super grandmaster (Classic elo of above 2,700) while playing blind chess by 2028, this market resolves to YES.

I will ignore fun games, at my discretion. (Say a game where Hiraku loses to ChatGPT because he played the Bongcloud)

Some clarification (28th Mar 2023): This market grew fast with a unclear description. My idea is to check whether a general intelligence can play chess, without being created specifically for doing so (like humans aren't chess playing machines). Some previous comments I did.

1- To decide whether a given program is a LLM, I'll rely in the media and the nomenclature the creators give to it. If they choose to call it a LLM or some term that is related, I'll consider. Alternatively, a model that markets itself as a chess engine (or is called as such by the mainstream media) is unlikely to be qualified as a large language model.

2- The model can write as much as it want to reason about the best move. But it can't have external help beyond what is already in the weights of the model. For example, it can't access a chess engine or a chess game database. 

I won't bet on this market and I will refund anyone who feels betrayed by this new description and had open bets by 28th Mar 2023. This market will require judgement.

Companion paper here with description of synthesis:

Updating to answer some more common questions. If anything here differs from the 2023-07-27 update, this update should supersede that one. I believe what I have written below maintains the spirit of the market and preserves its predictivity against weird edge cases. 

This question is specifically about LK-99. In the absence of overwhelming expert consensus (see below about resolution caveats), adding materials not in the original synthesis or characterization (replacing Cu with Au, Ag, etc) will not count toward a YES resolution. 

original XRD is OK, up to a point. I think I would be more accepting of this is it’s convincingly shown that the impurities are important to the superconductivity of LK-99. 

Synthesis of LK-99 by other means is totally fine, as long as the material characterization satisfies the criteria above. 

The original intent of this market was to bet on whether LK-99 exhibited the hallmarks of traditional superconductivity, but there have been a few questions on what happens if LK-99 is regions of 1D superconductivity in an insulating matrix, so it doesn’t display the expected R = 0 behavior below Tc. 

At this point, I’m going to hew to the original resolution criteria, in order of importance. 

While superconductor-insulator transitions have been observed, I’m not really familiar with them. Additionally, we don’t have good evidence that it is impossible to observe R=0 in LK-99, since at least 

 measurements show decreasing resistivity as a function of temperature. If we end up in a world where LK-99 convincingly displays a Meissner effect, but doesn’t show the expected resistivity behavior, I will solicit opinions from subject matter experts. After all, it would seem perverse to resolve NO if the majority of superconductivity experts think this is a YES.

I reserve the right to resolve to a probability if the experts I ask are split on the question of superconductivity.

I reserve the right to resolve according to whatever Wikipedia says about this material by Jan 1, 2025, especially if the experts I ask blow me off.

I reserve the right to revisit the resolution criteria if LK-99 or LK-99-like materials end up rewriting what we thought we knew about superconductivity. 

********************************************

Pasting my comment on resolution criteria

We're clearly all here because a) it's fun, and b) we're interested in room temperature superconductivity, not whether some other experimental group gets the same kinda sus data as the original paper. So, when I write 'replicate' in the question I am specifically asking: is the room temperature, ambient pressure superconductivity of the compound LK-99 convincingly demonstrated?

Specifically, replications should convincingly demonstrate:

If synthesizing the compound, there should be evidence that they did make something essentially the same as what is reported in the original paper. 

 not be required for a quantum well superconductor. I think I see how this could be the case. Willing to adjust this criterion after receiving more info from relevant theorists/experimentalists. 

I don't intend to require that replications be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The arXiv is sufficient for me. However, I do intend to wait a few weeks/months to resolve so that any pre-print can be adequately investigated for data manipulation, fraud, etc. In my utopia, labs that claim to have confirmed/disconfirmed this effect would also publish their raw data with their arXiv submissions, but I'm not holding my breath. 

Since high Tc superconductivity is not my specific field of expertise, I'm willing to defer to a consensus of subject matter experts on whether a pre-print is convincing or not, and I am willing to contact some beyond the usual twitter personalities.

: Eliezer and I publicly stated some predictions about AI performance on the IMO by 2025.... My final prediction (after significantly revising my guesses after looking up IMO questions and medal thresholds) was:

Eliezer spent less time revising his prediction, but said (earlier in the discussion):

So I think we have Paul at <8%, Eliezer at >16% for AI made before the IMO is able to get a gold (under time controls 

 of grand challenge) in one of 2022-2025.

Resolves to YES if either Eliezer or Paul acknowledge that an AI has succeeded at this task.

https://manifold.markets/MatthewBarnett/will-a-machine-learning-model-score-f0d93ee0119b

Update: As noted by Paul, the qualifying years for IMO completion are 2023, 2024, and 2025.

Update 2024-06-21: Description formatting

Update 2024-07-25: Changed title from "by 2025" to "by the end of 2025" for clarity

A car will be shown without a steering wheel

People (non Tesla employees) will ride in a car with no human driver

The unreleased Roadster will be on location

A new Tesla car will have an unpainted stainless steel exterior (that isn't the cybertruck)

Ride hailing app will be available for download

Optimus robot will be walking around where non-Tesla employees can interact with it

more than three Optimus robots will be shown

a mother of any of Elon's children will attend

Elon will express support for Donald Trump

More than one new car model will be announced 

Publicly available autonomous rides will be announced 

McDonald's fast chargers partnership announced

Elon will say something negative about Kamala Harris

This question resolves YES if Donald Trump wins the 2024 US presidential election, or resolves NO if he loses the election.

If Trump is no longer a candidate for president for any reason, this question resolves YES if any candidate of the Republican Party wins the election, or NO otherwise.

Resolution will be based on the Associated Press and Fox News decision desks. If both the AP and Fox declare a winner, this question will be resolved 48 hours later if those calls are not retracted.

If the AP/Fox do not declare a winner, such as if there is a tie in the electoral college, this question will resolve YES if any candidate of the Republican Party is designated as the next president by the United States Congress before the end of January 31st, 2025 (ET), or will resolve NO otherwise.

The Kamala Harris campaign soon after the first ABC debate, asked the Trump campaign for a second debate, will Donald Trump agree to a second debate?

Resolves yes if there is a second Kamala Vs Donald debate.

**UPDATE 10/2: The two post-debate snap polls were released, and it is incredibly close.  CBS/Yougov has it 42 Vance, 41 Walz and 17 tie with a margin of error of +/- 2.7 pts.   CNN has it 51 Vance, 49 Walz and a margin of error of +/- 5.3 pts.  These are both well within the margin of error.  Given that both are very close and within the margin of error, if these are the only polls, I would currently resolve this as a tie and void the market (per my original resolution criteria).  However, I am going to keep this open for 10 more days to see if any traditional polling come out on this question in the next week or so (these polls can take up to a week or more to be conducted).   If we see 1 more poll comes out and it is still just as close (2 points or under for Vance, a tie or Walz win), then I am going to declare it a tie and void the market.  If we see 1 more poll indicating a Vance win strongly (3 points or more) or multiple polls all in the same direction as the snap polls (+1 or more for Vance), then I will call it for Vance, as we will have seen a pattern in one direction (per my resolution criteria of showing a pattern even if within the MOE).  Please let me know if you have any questions.

https://x.com/CBSNewsPoll/status/1841320255810847104?s=19

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/02/politics/election-poll-walz-vance-debate/index.html

Who will the polls say won the debate between the two? Will resolve based on credible polls post-debate regarding this specific question.  Credible polls are those using a large sample, scientifically valid process and have a pollster rating of 1.9 or higher on 538 (which is about 100+ pollsters).  Examples include CNN/ssrs and you gov snap polls and Ipsos poll, which all did polls regarding the winner of the presidential debate and meet the criteria.  I plan to resolve within 48 hours if all the snap polls show a clear winner.  If the winner is less clear, I will wait 10 days to see if any additional polling is released to make it decisive.  I will not include any party or SUPER PAC pollsters, unless they have a rating of 1.9 or higher on 538.     If 1) there is a truly split polling result among credible polls (i.e. two polls show Vance won and two show Walz won) or 2) all poll results are within the polls stated margin of error and don't show a clear pattern (e.g. Walz +2, Vance +3, Walz +1), I will declare it a tie and void as N/A.  For example, the Margin of error for the CNN/ssrs poll was +/- 5.3 points.    If the polls are within the margin of error but all point in same direction (e.g. 3 polls with Vance +4), I will consider that a Vance victory. 

If there is no debate or there is only 1 or no polls that meet the criteria, I will resolve n/a and return the funds. If there is more than one VP debate, this will resolve based on the FIRST one.   

NOTE: Edited 10/1 to be clearer on resolution criteria.  

Will Kamala Harris be able to flip a state in the 2024 election?

Flipping a state means she wins a state not won by Joe Biden in 2020.

Maine or Nebraska's congressional districts do not count. For example, if Kamala Harris wins Maine's second district, that doesn't resolve this question.

This question closes a day before the election, and resolves as soon as results are known.

in order to prevent a confusing “reaching of 60% first,” resolution of this market will be determined by analyzing 

the electionbettingodds “last day” chart 

Through analyzing the graph between market creation and Election Day (11/5 at 11:59:59 pm EST), 

 the market will resolve YES for the respective candidate and NO for “neither” and the other candidate.

To further ensure to you bias has no roll in determining the “official 60% being reached” I will not trade in this market.

If the Kamala and Trump odds each never reach 60% before the eod November 5th 2024 (11:59:59 pm EST), “Neither” will resolve YES and others will resolve NO.

Any glitches on their website will not resolve this. I will wait until the point in question is static and the following point is plotted to determine if it was a 60% being reached at that moment.

Comment any questions or news you have! 💙

I will resolve this based on some combination of how much it gets talked about in elections, how much money goes to interest groups on both topics, and how much of the "political conversation" seems to be about either.

🇺🇸 US Politics

🖥️ Technology

🏟️ Sports

This question will resolve YES if Donald Trump wins a plurality of the popular vote in the 2024 US presidential election. 

Resolution will wait until there is an overwhelming consensus, based on a consensus of credible reporting such as the Associated Press.

Kinetically, i.e. with a missile/bomb of some sort.

Trump is unable to complete his candidacy

Either candidate accepted money from a foreign government illegally for their 2024 campaign

Nikki Haley reverses her endorsement, endorses Harris

Trump campaign files previously leaked to press are published (see comment)

Unexpected military gains in the Ukraine-Russia war, directly influencing elections

A leaked war or corruption document from Russia or Ukraine on either of the candidates

Nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel 

Major hurricane landfall in a swing state

Russian drone hits NATO civilian infrastructure, real or false flag.

Ukraine and Russia reach a surprise peace agreement

Trump is confirmed to be carrying on an affair with Laura Loomer

Laura Loomer to be pregnant with Trump’s child

(another) clear assassination attempt on either candidate 

Kamala’s paternal grandmother is not black

100+ new cases of human H5N1 in the United States

GPT-5 is released and AI regulation becomes a more salient issue mentioned in news headlines

Tim Walz has ties to the Chinese Communist Party. 

Douglas Emhoff Slapping His Ex-Girlfirend

Natural disaster not previously mentioned

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise

Only applies to news events between 10/1-10/31. Any events happening outside of that range must resolve No. 

Unlinked market with shorter timeframes here: 

Trade on politics & more