Open API
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ301 | |
| 2 | Ṁ296 | |
| 3 | Ṁ206 | |
| 4 | Ṁ203 | |
| 5 | Ṁ166 |
People are also trading
This seems like strong evidence that the API is not public at this time. No one was able to bring convincing evidence that they signed up as an individual person and were granted API access within 1 week. We're also well beyond the original deadline of 1 October. If we let this drag on much longer, it is going to be answering a different question.
The market title asks for public
The description specifies "Open API"
The browser-based use of Claude is public, but the API use is not
No one was able to sign up for the API as an individual person and get access, even with an extra week
It's almost the end of October
If this was more in question, I would probably advocate for an N/A, but in this case I think there is enough evidence that the criteria were not met on 1 October, to resolve No.
Public (in the question) means anyone can use it, multiple people have posted screenshots showing that you need to apply or that it is only open to people they select. That's not really public.....semi-public? "Limited Access"?
I would not know what to do, except there was a previous market from 7/1:
/Gigacasting/will-claude-be-public-by-71
@Mira wrote this while resolving the previous market for 7/1:
> I've resolved this market NO since Gigacasting hasn't been active. Claude is public but I interpret the "Open API" in the description to mean that API access must be public, and there is still a request form for that. If he comes back and disagrees, this market can be reresolved.
Based primarily on that market's resolution appearing undisputed, I'm going to follow in the same form.
I plan to resolve this as No, but before I do, it only seems fair to allow an opportunity for @MarcusAbramovitch @Shump Yes holders to convince me there has been a material change in the situation since the 7/1 market resolved No. Was it significantly more public on 10/1 than 7/1?
@Eliza The API is open now. I saw that previous ruling and based my bet on it. For consistency's sake, I believe this should resolve YES. That is also what Gigacasting specified in the description, so I would take that to mean that since the API is now available (maybe still not to literally everyone, but to most of whom would want to use it) it should be YES
Gigacasting's GPT-4 markets resolved NO by him, despite the API being available to some members of the public including myself, and despite any ChatGPT+ user being able to buy access to GPT-4. Because there was still an API waitlist, just like there is now for Claude.
https://manifold.markets/Gigacasting/will-gpt4-be-public-by-june-1?r=TWlyYQ
Deleted comment.
@Eliza I have had access for months and just pay for it. How do you know it's a request form and not a registration form? Is there evidence that it's not available to anyone who fills it in and enters details, etc ?
I had to delete a comment, I was wrong.
There seems to be some confusion here about "Open API" in the market description. This means the API access to the tool is the gatekeeper.
I see the sign-up page for Claude.ai for general use "Talk to Claude" says open beta. But that is not the same as API access. Here is what I find for API access:
Based on "Open API" in the description, this question is about the API access, not the browser. If it was about the browser, I would probably be resolving Yes.
I want to allow you the opportunity to prove that this is public, so if anyone can do as @EvanDaniel has done, fill out the form for Claude API Access as an individual, and be accepted within 1 week, I will resolve Yes. Otherwise I will resolve No.
Here is the page I found:
@Ernie I made a new comment, let me know what you think. It does NOT look like API access is public to me, only browser access. I am still willing to resolve Yes if any individual can fill out that form and get access.
@Eliza I disagree that's fair. Precedent from the GPT-4 market is that partial access isn't sufficient. I had API access almost as soon as GPT-4 opened up(within a couple days). Others had to wait months, or had to submit pull requests to the Evals repo to get access. You're implicitly selecting for anyone who gets lucky to show up.
@Mira Were you responding to the comment that I later deleted? I made a new comment because I realized I made a mistake in the previous one. I think giving anyone 1 week to prove that API access is indeed public with a simple sign-up form is fair.
They characterize the API program as "early access" which is normally not "public" in my eyes, but if it is effectively public and they are letting everyone in....
@Ernie this image looks like pretty good evidence for NO.
I just applied for access w/my alt, will update tonight if anything comes in. But even if not, the fact that you have to apply for it specifically pushes strongly towards NO for me.
From the docs:
https://docs.anthropic.com/claude/docs/getting-access-to-claude
I have submitted the account creation form and have not yet received an email reply, but it's only been a few minutes. I put "n/a" in the mandatory organization web site field and used a personal email address.
@EvanDaniel huh. Yeah that look nonpublic. Or at least they want you to superficially gesture towards commercialization?
