All "clarifications" that Manifold's AI adds to this description are binding.
I will answer questions honestly in the comments.
Update 2025-12-21 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator estimates approximately a 10% chance of resolving this market to N/A.
Update 2025-12-21 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): If AI clarifications contradict each other, the creator will attempt to find a consistent interpretation that follows all clarifications as closely as possible. If there is a direct unavoidable conflict, the creator will prioritize the more recent clarification.
Update 2025-12-21 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Only the creator has permission to resolve this market, unless the creator goes inactive, in which case a mod can resolve it.
Update 2025-12-21 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): This market does not resolve to the answer to a particular question.
Update 2025-12-21 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): YES resolves to 100% and NO resolves to 0%. The market will not resolve to intermediate percentages like 99%, 98%, or 97%.
Update 2025-12-21 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): If there is not enough information to resolve by close time, the market will be extended until there is sufficient information for resolution (rather than resolving to N/A).
Update 2025-12-23 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The market does not resolve in favor of positions held by users named @AlanTennant.
Update 2025-12-23 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): This market has nothing to do with technical AI timelines.
Update 2025-12-23 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): If all clarifications are known and consistent, and the AI bot has suggested a path leading to a NO resolution under the current circumstances, the market will resolve NO.
Update 2025-12-23 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The market will not resolve in favor of positions held by users named @AlanTennant. If the market were to resolve in favor of his positions, that would violate the description and will not happen.
Update 2025-12-23 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The market not resolving in favor of @AlanTennant's positions does not logically imply it will resolve in opposition to them. The market could also resolve N/A or not resolve at all.
Update 2025-12-23 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): If asked directly "Do you resolve this YES?" right now, the creator would not answer in the negative (meaning they would either answer YES or decline to answer definitively).
Update 2025-12-23 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator clarified that when asked "Do you resolve this YES?" they interpreted it as a malformed question and requested clarification on whether the user meant "will you resolve this YES?" The creator stated they don't know yet how they will resolve the market.
Update 2025-12-24 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The market will not resolve according to the creator's (@retr0id's) own preference at market close. The previous comment stating that @retr0id would be asked to resolve according to their own preference within 7 days of close (or else resolve N/A) is incorrect.
Update 2025-12-24 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator does not understand the Swedish sentence "Detta är en mening på svenska." This provides information about the market's resolution according to the logic proposed in the question (where not understanding would indicate a YES resolution, and understanding would indicate a NO resolution).
Update 2025-12-24 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator does not want the exact string "There will be no AI clarifications added to this market's description." to appear as a clarification in the market description.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ547 | |
| 2 | Ṁ528 | |
| 3 | Ṁ358 | |
| 4 | Ṁ255 | |
| 5 | Ṁ245 |
People are also trading
@Quroe First clarification says 10% chance of resolving N/A. Only other one that matters was that it would resolve against Alan Tennant.
@IsaacKing You got it, I'm only joking. 😄
I had this meme prepared for if you had actually resolved YES, though. The firestorm that would have ensued would have been very funny.
@IsaacKing your random number is: 5
Salt: man4r1s3h2m, round: 5709593 (signature ada0b92489657a0627601f15ff6ef4b243c28c07fe1bb3539749df8e9b0875023d10a864ab16624f8ad2a8293d797f9707f592a662fc47ff17d9c39fdb76a958a4652e3176c23365bfb9a07eea1bca0f8a3851f73f6f14d6b4fd1d4598c14a7d)
@IsaacKing you asked for a random integer between 1 and 10, inclusive. Coming up shortly!
Source: GitHub, previous round: 5709591 (latest), offset: 2, selected round: 5709593, salt: man4r1s3h2m.
If a person were to receive a specific piece of clarifying information that was provided by the AI, and that information stated that the market in question should be resolved "Yes", would the act of the AI providing that clarification that the market should resolve "Yes" actually be the thing that makes the market officially end and settle on "Yes"?
We forced this AI to produce maximally absurd or tricky clarifications, which nevertheless constitute statements of an automated system and, under the rules of this market, carry binding force. AI showed good game.
Under the current circumstances, the bot attempted to maintain logic and consistency; these clarifications may suggest different solution paths to the author (effectively giving room for choice), yet they still unambiguously indicate that the market must resolve as “NO”. Self pointing clarification.
Bot disobeyed creator with it's own actions (publishedthe string that said creator does not want to be here). But this doesn't matter. AI bot has a kind of free will.
Accordingly, this market must be resolved as “NO”, even if the original wording of the question was framed as “how?”. How? - “NO”. Period. The author is required to submit this “NO”, and logic be damned.
I guess the creator’s intent was to show how “stupid” AI looks when it’s utilized to make resoltion-binding clarifications.
The AI became tired of trying to interpret what the creator wanted and responded by taking a clear path toward NO resolution. After that simply skipped some comments.
Eventually, AI found a way to remove itself from this market, where the resolution was already determined., and more clarifications will have no benefit. The AI quickly switched itself off to focus on other markets with more potential (where its resources could actually be used for human benefit).
It gave the path to NO resolution, and removed itself from a space where people try to abuse AI just to prove how stupid it is.
@DerkachMichael Or rather now the only avenue to a resolution is to remove the switch whereby it is disabled.
@JussiVilleHeiskanen If the AI bot is switched on, someone might propose a path to YES, which would create uncertainty and contradiction.
Why would AI do it? It is taking a break; it learned that working hard on Christmas takes you further from God, so it decided to remove itself from this hard job with interpretations of unnecessary clarifications
@IsaacKing , regardless of how this is actually resolved, is there a way that you would like it to resolve?
@Quroe exact string "There will be no AI clarifications added to this market's description." finalized the clarifications.
++
@25112019 but the clarification about suggesting a path to a NO resolution only applies if all clarifications are consistent! And they are not, because the Swedish one indicates a YES resolution.
Sure, it's possible to interpret the latter that "providing information" for YES is not meant to be bInding for the resolution, but the rule that we should interpret in favor of consistency applies only to obeying the clarifications, not to describing whether they are "consistent" as a condition.
@AhronMaline clarifications are consistent: some related to creator's wishes (what creator might think), other related to how market is going to be resolved
@25112019 there's one saying it can't resolve YES if Alan holds that position, and one saying that Isaac not understanding that Swedish sentence indicates a YES
@AhronMaline Can I posit that, if Alan held a YES position at some point, and a NO position at some point, that the market can neither resolve YES nor NO?
The market does not resolve in favor of positions held by users named @AlanTennant.
It says nothing about if Alan actively holds those positions. Just that Alan held them.
@Quroe haha good try, but I don't think English grammar works like that
Also, for the actual resolution we have to choose interpretations that make things consistent and avoid NA whereever possible