I won’t bet.
All criteria must be met by market close to count.
I realize “best” is subjective. If it’s sufficiently unclear to me I may N/A.
I’m allowing humans to do some work with inputting puzzles, clicking on the website, taking screenshots, etc, but for a group’s writeup to count the AI should be doing the vast majority of the work on any puzzles it is claimed to have solved.
Clarification questions welcome.
I’ll try to be generous in accepting what teams report.
I may N/A some markets if it is unclear whether they have been met or if I realize belatedly the criteria are too poorly defined.
People are also trading
@JimHays I don’t have any special knowledge, but I’m surprised this is so low. But maybe some groups won’t publish writeups or they will take too long to come out?
@Eliza I should have used the exact language from the registration form but this is what I was intending to refer to:

It would likely be a lot more work to do a thorough attempt on this compared to the Putnam or IMO, and maybe results won’t be impressive enough for official teams to announce results, so whatever we get might just be from hobbyists?
@JimHays This is back-channel conversation that maybe I'm not supposed to repeat, but as of mid-December zero teams that had registered have said that they were doing so for AI training or benchmarking. I'm somewhat bullish on the possibility of AI puzzle solving (though I doubt models right now are up to the task), but that's why I have so many NO bets in this market.
@JimHays I only bought No shares! I can't risk everything. The entire site already thinks I'm the anti-AI crusader.