This market tests a recursive paradox: an essay arguing that prediction markets and AI systems can improve collective reasoning—itself produced through transparent human-AI collaboration—now asks whether markets can price its own legitimacy.
Background: "From Keynes to the Machine Age: Toward an Epistemic Infrastructure for the Twenty-First Century" is a philosophical essay connecting Keynes, Ramsey, Hayek, and Deutsch to modern prediction markets and AI systems. It was orchestrated by Cameron Woodward but generated primarily through collaboration across Grok, Claude, Gemini, and GPT-5 Pro—with full transparency about each model's contribution.
The essay argues that properly structured human-AI collaboration can produce legitimate epistemic work. This market tests that claim by asking: will experts take it seriously enough to engage with it?
Resolution Criteria:
This market resolves YES if at least 3 of the following occur by July 1, 2026:
Academic response: Published paper or working paper (on SSRN, PhilPapers, arXiv, or in journal) that substantively engages with the essay's arguments (can be critical or supportive). Must be more than a passing mention.
Public intellectual engagement: Essay or article of 1,500+ words from someone with relevant credentials (PhD in philosophy/economics/CS/AI, OR recognized public intellectual with substantial published work in epistemology/AI) that analyzes the essay's claims or collaborative method.
Prediction market adoption evidence: Essay cited in discussion of real-world prediction market implementation by a company, government, platform, or in academic/policy analysis of prediction markets.
Methodological precedent: Another substantial work (5,000+ words—essay, paper, or equivalent) explicitly adopts transparent multi-model AI collaboration with full attribution, citing this essay as template or precedent.
Coverage in quality venues: Referenced substantively (not just listed) in intellectually serious outlets such as: MIT Technology Review, Noema, Works in Progress, Asterisk Magazine, LessWrong (curated/featured post), Marginal Revolution, ACX, or comparable venues that engage seriously with ideas.
What counts as "substantive":
More than a brief mention or citation
Engages with specific arguments or evaluates the collaborative method
Shows the author actually read and thought about the work
What doesn't count:
Social media threads (unless they meet criterion 2's length/credential requirements and are published as standalone essays)
AI-generated responses without human authorship
Self-promotion or citations by essay contributors
Mentions in link roundups without analysis
Why This Market Matters:
This bet has three possible outcomes, each informative:
High probability: Market believes the work merits serious attention—validating either the argument's strength, the method's novelty, or both.
Low probability: Market expects experts will dismiss AI-collaborative work regardless of content quality—revealing adoption barriers for this form of epistemic infrastructure.
Middling probability: Genuine uncertainty—the market doing what markets should do.
The Paradox: If the essay is correct that markets effectively price epistemic work, this market should accurately price this work. If experts engage because arguments merit it, the market should anticipate that. If they dismiss it as AI slop despite substance, the market should price that too. If it's actually incoherent, experts ignore it and the market is right to forecast low engagement.
Resolution Process: I will track publicly verifiable instances of each criterion and resolve based on clear documentation (links, screenshots, archives). Community input welcome for edge cases.
Essay Link: [Paper awaiting publication]
1,000