This market resolves YES for each AI model that receives an official public release during August 2026. A release counts as available to users if it is widely made available through official channels (API, web interface, download, or official partnership). A US only release is enough to count as widely available.
Subvariants are model releases that share the same tier name (e.g., Flash Preview, Flash Live, Flash Instant, Flash Image all count for "Gemini 3.1 Flash"; 5.5-Thinking, 5.5-Instant, 5.5-Nano, 5.5-Pro all count for "GPT5.5"). Releases with a distinct tier name (Flash-Lite, Flash, Pro as a separate tier, etc.) do NOT count for an adjacent tier, even within the same model family. When in doubt, I'll use the official model name the company uses to classify it.
I will count any model release by OpenAI better than GPT-5.6 Sol for the GPT-5.7 option, even if they change the naming.
Previous Months:
/prismatic/august-2026-ai-model-releases
/prismatic/july-2026-ai-model-releases
/prismatic/june-2026-ai-model-releases
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ353 | |
| 2 | Ṁ282 | |
| 3 | Ṁ133 | |
| 4 | Ṁ110 | |
| 5 | Ṁ89 |
People are also trading
@Fynn Kimi had a release earlier in September, though it was 2.8. Still fits the criteria though.
https://www.kimi.com/code/docs/en/kimi-code/whats-new.html#k2-8-preview-september-11-2026
@0xseraphim The market description reads (since creation) "I will count any model release by OpenAI better than GPT-5.6 Sol for the GPT-5.7 option, even if they change the naming." I get that it is frustrating and I could have named the option better, but it would be worse if i changed it.
@Fynn stop pretending that you're being fair and balanced. You forfeited that when you renamed the question and bought all the yes shares
@0xseraphim Do you agree that the new name of the option fits with the description of the market? If yes, then I don't see how renaming it would be a bad thing or "cheating". I agree that the inital name was not good, but it was an honest mistake.
@0xseraphim I have reviewed the market description and even the trade ledger to see what happened here.
The crux of the argument is indeed the line from the description, which has always been there:
I will count any model release by OpenAI better than GPT-5.6 Sol for the GPT-5.7 option, even if they change the naming.
Under normal circumstances, if this line wasn't there, I would say that the renaming wouldn't be fair, but the "CYA" carve-out is right there. I can see how that could easily be missed if you're acting quickly and trading on the news where every second counts.
@Fynn Please consider constructing future markets in a way that is upfront and puts everything front-and-center "on the tin" for people who are moving quickly.
As it stands, though, I think we let this one ride.
@Quroe that ain't right. That means a user can just spam out markets like this then rename the questions halfway through to farm mana
@0xseraphim I sent you the 121 mana you invested as I don't want to profit off of my bad market naming. I think next time you could be more friendly/less angry, 121 mana is not that much and people on manifold generally operate in good faith.
@Fynn ok that's a lot more honest. But you could just have N/A'd the question as soon as the users pointed out the problem. That's what the N/A button is for
@0xseraphim no, we should never use the N/A button if the description was clear. N/A is BAD. It messes up a LOT with everyone's HAPPINESS. PLEASE do not ADVOCATE for N/A buttons if the DESCRIPTION was CLEAR. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE.
