🏅 Top traders

@Jacy how do you feel about re-resolving this to today? 😉

I don't really care because I didn't have much mana in this market, but I kind of assumed I was betting on when the larger rollout would be, which this doesn't seem to be. Something like "We are beginning to roll out advanced voice mode to all Plus users" or something.

Where did you get the impression that a 'significant amount' of plus users have it? I feel its a tiny miniriry

https://x.com/OpenAI/status/1818353580279316863

This seems to meet the resolution criteria.

The second tweet literally says "Users in this alpha" which is what made me sell my newly acquired news traded YES shares. I think that's clearly incompatible with the description's "It must be at least a beta testing...".

While it's questionable and arbitrary what counts as an alpha or beta, I think the wording from both parties here is so clear that this should not be enough, IMO.

Closed Alpha testings DO NOT count

@Flowers this is not a closed alpha test.

A closed alpha is an early, limited-access test phase for a product or software, restricted to a select group of users

@Flowers closed alpha is with employees or contractors, which already happened. This is with a select group of end users.

Kudos to Flowers for arguing against your own large YES position here.

I think "open" vs "closed" here refers to whether people can self-select in? If not, what else does it refer to?

The Wikipedia definitions seem to support Jacy's case, I think?

What seems to be causing much of the issue here is that OpenAI calls it an Alpha and not a Beta, which I think would be a better description. That aside though, I think it should be considered "closed" until anyone who wants it (at least in e.g. US territory) can have it?

@HenriThunberg companies incorrectly describe their own products all the time. I don't think that's generally good evidence for market resolution unless the market is about self-description, at least when we have the object-level evidence in front of us.

I would agree this is a closed beta test.

Yeah even ChatGPT seems to support the claim that this isn’t a closed alpha anymore.

Alpha testing usually involves internal testing within the organization or with a very select group of testers, while beta testing is when a feature is released to a small fraction of external users to gather feedback and identify issues before a full launch.

Alright then. I guess you are right.

As per the market rules:

• It must be at least a beta testing where a significant portion of non-afliliated ChatGPT Plus end users are getting access to the new voice mode.

It seems that the case is pretty much clear. The only disputable word here is "significant".

How on Earth do other requirements outweigh a requrement? Thats not how requirement work, ever. Let alone for the requirement that is included in the title.

(Edit: this was a reply to a part of the above comment that was later edited out)

@Jacys reasoning seems pretty sound. "Significant" is more like a quantitative descriptor than a requirement, but an inherent subjective one. There are a lot of videos from non-affiliated people spreading around Twitter and Reddit right now, just hours after the announcement.

it also counts if the rollout is slow, incremental and uneven

Closed alpha, despite OpenAI naming it that way, seems to only involve internal or affiliated testers according to most definitions.

For example, plugins and code interpreter were still called alpha features after virtually every chatgpt plus user had access to.

But if it bothers you, you are invited to complain to the mods, perhaps they will see the whole thing more objectively and impartially.

It is a reuqirement by an honest reading and by your own words iirc before your edit a min ago.

A significant 'portion' is not demonstrated by a few vids by mostly the same few people when there are probably around 5 million plus users give or take.

Whether the rollout is slow or fast makes no difference as stated in the resolution criteria but the time to which it resolves, also as per the criteria, reuqires a 'significant portion' of people to already have it. All words are subjective in some sense, but in another sense if a person thinks a tiny percent is a significant portion in this context, IMO they lack common sense.

I don't care for 25 mana. I care about not giving you 1 star unfairly, but I still cant find a reason to regret it.

Yeah, I probably let myself be convinced a bit too quickly and acted too hastily. If someone has lost a lot of mana or is firmly convinced that this was wrong despite the arguments presented, please contact the mods, if they are of the opinion that the market has resolved incorrectly, I will accept it if it is reversed.