Resolves to the time period in which this happens, dates inclusive.
Any model which is clearly the next major, canonical form of GPT will count for this market regardless of what it is called. I am assuming this will be called GPT-4.5 or GPT-5, but it still counts if it has another name. A larger context window does not count, a jump like GPT-3 to GPT-3.5 does count.
It must be released to the general public, though it can still be in open beta and it can still be behind a paywall or require a subscription.
I will continue adding later time periods as necessary, which will split from "Other". So bet on "Other" if you believe the release will be later than any current options.
Related questions
๐ Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | แน3,314 | |
| 2 | แน1,157 | |
| 3 | แน947 | |
| 4 | แน797 | |
| 5 | แน718 |
Kalshi's Market on a GPT-4 successor/GPT-4.5 resolved YES today, counting GPT-4o. I was already leaning towards a YES resolution, and was mainly waiting to see if Kalshi would disagree with me. Mira's market about 4.5 is also counting GPT-4o. Jim's market on if GPT2-Chatbot is GPT-4's successor has resolved NO. Mikhail's Market on "a more capable llm" is still unresolved.
My markets don't have exactly the same criteria as those markets, but this is a tricky situation and I wanted to see how other creator's handled it and hear arguments from traders. At this point, I think I'm confident in resolving all my markets to count GPT-4o as if it were GPT-4.5. I think that this is how OpenAI is presenting 4o, and I think that the improvements to speed, cost, and modality are impressive enough to justify that presentation as the latest and greatest flagship model.
On OpenAI's website, they now list GPT-4 and GPT-4 Turbo together as the "previous set" of models:
I think that it's disappointing that 4o isn't significantly smarter than GPT-4, but my markets never required OpenAI's next model to be significantly smarter. This system seems to be what all the rumors about a multimodal 4.5 model were referring to, and it was those rumors that kicked off my creation of these markets.
OpenAI's presentation of 4o is clearly intended to frame it as a jump like 3 to 3.5 or 3.5 to 4, but they are saving the impact of a numerical name increase for the full jump to GPT 5.
The next version of these markets will be run by the canonical Manifold AI account, and I will not trade in them:
There are a lot of markets like this that are still up in the air about whether GPT-4o will count or not. Tweets from openAI:
I don't want to rush to any conclusions on a brief demo video and some tweets though. Resolution can wait a bit as we learn more about the model, as it's not named 4.5 or 5 so we need to be sure it counts as "clearly the next major, canonical form of GPT".
@Joshua does it count as OpenAI broadly releasing a model if the model is only available via Microsoft copilot, and not via openAI's website or API?
Most would not consider the GPT-4 that was available early via Bing chat to be the "canonical version", and it's a meaningfully different model (as in - its responses are obviously different). Though it's possible that the GPT-5 available via Microsoft copilot (if that happens) might be actually the same model this time, as the one available via OpenAI themselves.
@chrisjbillington Open to suggestions here but I think it has to be officially announced and available to the general public (even if they have to pay for it).
We know they secretly test models before release, this market is about the proper release.
Officially announced by OpenAI?
An announcement from Microsoft only wouldn't count?
What if there are comments from OpenAI acknowledging that Microsoft is making the same model available as will later be available from OpenAI?
A bright line might be to say OpenAI only, another bright line might be that there must be a release announcement from OpenAI, even if access is via Microsoft. You could say that an announcement from Microsoft that appears sanctioned by OpenAI would count, but that's getting blurrier.
It's in my interests to argue "OpenAI only", but it is also the clearest line.
@chrisjbillington Well I said "next major, canonical form of GPT" so I don't think it's canonical unless they're calling it it their next flagship LLM and OAI is providing access to it themselves. Does that make sense to everyone though?
Things are getting interesting, see the comments from the other market and particularly:
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=h_&q=https%3A%2F%2Fopenai.com%2Fblog%2Fgpt-4-5-turbo&ia=web