🏅 Top traders

Appropriate that impossible edition was also impossible to resolve without controversy.

Thanks everyone for the civil discussion. This wasn't my best managed market. I contradicted myself by at one point saying Donald Trump would have been the resolution string for last year (despite his name being capitalized on the cover), but saying exact capitalization would matter in the description.

In my view, the candidates for "headline" are "The Architects of AI" and "THE ARCHITECTS OF AI". As Ziddletwix has pointed out, the only people affected by this choice will be the people that traded during the ~30min window of ambiguity and frenzy when the leak happened but before the market closed. These people knew the risk they got into. Further, the title "exact headline [IMPOSSIBLE EDITION]" must have been evocative.

Since my clarifications were contradictory, both options seem reasonable, and N/A seems worse to me, I'm splitting the resolution in half: 50% for "The Architects of AI" and 50% for "THE ARCHITECTS OF AI".

@Bayesian time to resolve

@jim FWIW I support the all-caps resolution

problem is there are multiple headlines. One of them is the magazine headline, and one of them is the announcement headline

@jim This one is actually pretty clear from the description. @Bayesian got lucky though that the correct answer was added.

I'll still try to make the case for N/A: In the counterfactual world, where "THE ARCHITECTS OF AI" wasn't added, I could have bet on "Other". Would anyone have supported "Other" in that case? This would have misresolved in the counterfactual case and thus should resolve N/A.

@ItsMe There's no mention of an "announcement headline" in the description. The main headline is the one on the cover.

@Bayesian Wait... Are we sure this isn't "the architects of ai" in small caps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_caps

@Primer It shouldn’t n/a. Please pick a resolution.

@Primer Nevermind I just read it again. I agree with you

@NzJack0n Just fyi: If this was my market, I'd resolve N/A for exactly this counterfactual reason.

i feel like this is somewhat poorly posed.

the main argument against "THE ARCHITECTS OF AI" is that it's clearly not how the market had operated until the moment that answer was added. every option prior to this had used the capitalization used in the article/wikipedia/etc, without capslock. sometimes it's correct for a market to resolve against how every trader/the creator had interpreted it up until near the end, but it's certainly a mark against it.

the description just says:

MAIN Time Person of the Year (POTY) headline

i'm not sure i follow why this must refer to the cover. "headline", would, if anything, imply the article takes precedence. the headline of the article is unambiguously:

"Why the Architects of AI Are TIME’s 2025 Person of the Year"

the argument against this is the same as the capslock version—no one had been submitting answers about the headline of the article, they had been guessing the phrasing of the person of the year!

imo, there's no perfect match for this description. "MAIN Time Person of the Year (POTY) headline" does not clearly identify "the text written on the cover". if anything, i think the headline of the article is a better fit for that description, except both these options are at odds with how the market had operated.

personally, i'd resolve it to "The Architects of AI"—it isn't a "headline", but it clearly best matches what the creator/traders had been guessing up until this point (which were all phrasings for PotY, not the capslock of the magazine cover). the fact that it isn't explicitly a "headline" is fine since (1) there's no clear/unambiguous "headline" anyways, & (2) it's what the spirit of the market had been up until the announcement.

in practice, i don't think it matters too much. most people were holders in "other" up until near the end, which should be correct. a few people might have bought or sold either breakout option, but they did so at their own risk (i have a slightly higher position in the non-capslock one, but w/e it's a small difference). and so resolving to any of "other" or either architects headline will have a ~similar outcome.

but TL;DR imo this question isn't coherent if it's strictly about a "headline" so it's better to just go with the spirit of the market that everyone had been predicting, which is the phrasing of the PotY itself. this would have been clear if bayesian had given a concrete example from any previous year, but no one actually asked him so that is what it is

@Ziddletwix I won't oppose "The architects of AI" or "THE ARCHITECTS OF AI". But the fact that

• this hasn't resolved yet

• traders have been heavily buying and selling both of them

• capitalization was explicitely mentioned as relevant in the description

• other POTYs were not always capitalized

• we don't even know what a "headline" is

• this would have resolved "The architects of AI" if there was no other option

• we all disagree in good faith

pretty stromgly support N/A. Sure, it's unfair to not win when one is right (allegedly), but it's more unfair to lose when one is right (allegedly).

@Primer If it were small caps, presumably some of the letters would still be larger to indicate they were the capitalized ones. Since everything is the same height, that would imply that they didn’t capitalize any of the letters. Since at least the T, A, and I should be capitalized, I do not believe it is small caps

@JimHays Apologies for resorting to AI, but I don't think this needs real research as I was just joking:

The query appears to be asking about "cursive small caps" in the Times New Roman font, but this combination is not standard or supported in the font. Times New Roman does not include a cursive style, and the concept of "cursive small caps" is not a defined typographic feature.

The issue of small caps in Times New Roman is well-documented. The system version of Times New Roman on many operating systems, particularly macOS (version 5.01.3x) and some Linux distributions, lacks small caps support, resulting in a warning and fallback to regular lowercase letters when using commands like \textsc{} or \bsc{}.

This problem is not universal; the Windows version of Times New Roman includes small caps and old-style figures as OpenType features.

However, even when small caps are available, they are not cursive in style.

As it's in cursive, the barely existing prior for small caps gets a pretty heavy beating.

@Primer We must be looking at different things. Where is the cursive version?

@JimHays Those letters on the right are clearly cursive (unlike e.g. DONALD TRUMP in the screenshot above):

@Primer Do you mean italicized?

@JimHays Lol... Yes! Sorry. Italicized translates to "kursiv" in German. Knowing that "cursive" is a font style, I had forgotten that those are different things.

There are italicized small caps in Times New Roman, so my very low prior on "the architects of ai" remains. 😜

@ItsMe ok I missed this comment and it unambiguously supports “The Architects of AI”.

Now, if you think it conflicts with the description, you could argue N/A. But imo given that “headline” is an under specified term, and prior til the announcement, no one was critiquing the use of the word “headline” in the description, it makes sense to resolve it in the spirit of the options that had been submitted and the explicit answer Bayesian gave.

@Ziddletwix agreed

@Ziddletwix The description says

There are multiple answer options with the same text but different capitalization (e.g., "Artificial Intelligence" vs "artificial intelligence"). These are treated as distinct answers and will resolve separately based on the exact capitalization used in Time's headline.

which should rank higher than a comment...

@Primer But "headline" is ambiguous because there are multiple headlines.

^ from https://time.com/7200212/person-of-the-year-2024-donald-trump/

@jim

^ this is from the cover

@jim this year:

This is the equivilant of the "Donald Trump" headline

@jim Imo, the headline is what's on the cover. I'm fine with arguing it's ambiguous, but then that's just an argument for N/A (which I'm in favor of).

@Primer headlines are typically not for covers they’re for articles. Covers have cover lines.

@MachiNi As I said, I'm fine with arguing for N/A on that grounds, but I'd object arguing for "Other".