Reminder: Any group/abstract answer is consolidated under [Consolidated Unshared Abstract/Group Answer] to avoid overlap between answers.
This is a variant of Who will be Time Person of the Year 2023? [Free Response - Fixed Payout - Unique Trader Bonuses For Your Answers!]
Differences from the original:
1) This question will remain open until after the announcement. "Other" will therefore never payout, though it will split into future submitted answers that may payout.
2) All possible variations of "Artificial Intelligence" are grouped together into [Consolidated Artificial Intelligence Answer]. If the POTY is any variation of AI, this question will payout. If the title is shared with a human, as in "Sam Altman and ChatGPT", then this answer will payout 50%. No other submitted AI answers will payout.
3) All other possible non-human/abstract answers like "You" or "The Spirit of Ukraine" or "The Guardians" or "The Silence Breakers" are grouped together into [Consolidated Unshared Abstract/Group Answer].
This consolidated answer only pays out if no individual human is named as person of the year. This means in 2022 this question would have resolved 100% to Zelenskyy, even though he shared it with an abstract concept. However, in 2017 and 2018 this answer would have resolved 100% to this consolidated answer, as no individual was elevated enough from the groups "The Silence Breakers" and "The Guardians" to be given the title like Zelenskyy was.
No other submitted answers that are not individual humans will payout under any circumstance.
As in the original market, if the Time Person of the Year is multiple individual humans I will resolve equally to all non-duplicate correct submitted options. However, you are not allowed to submit multiple people in a single answer.
In 2020 I would have resolved 50% to Joe Biden and 50% to Kamala Harris. I would not resolve to "Joe Biden and Kamala Harris" in any scenario.
These rules will be considered "in draft" for a few days, as I'm open to more suggestions on improving the format.
1,000
3.00
@SirCryptomind Weird; the mobile app view was still showing it to me as unresolved, must have been a caching error or something, sorry!!!
A.I. got lost in translation
Maybe we trained it too much
But maybe OpenAI was a masterpiece 'til the board tore it all up
Running nodes, we were there
Sam remembers it, all too well
@SirCryptomind I know, no Sam hate from me haha, just couldn't think of a better single syllable thing to put there. I'm no AI
@StopPunting My belief from the beginning is that the bettors here, on average, are more engaged in coverage about AI. A technological bias if you will.
@thepurplebull to be fair, Altman was at least a finalist (and only closed at around 40% on here pre-announcement) so I don't think the bias is cripplingly bad. but it's definitely there. perhaps even just techno-optimism in general given how crazy high the LK-99 markets got. Of course those are just two examples I can think of, so it is possible that we are just drawing this conclusion from a high visibility markets. I'd be curious to see Manifold total calibration by topic
@StopPunting The finalist market had Altman at 60% though. Here it was split 40% Sam, 10% ChatGPT, 10% AI.
@TimothyJohnson5c16 The 60% was mostly @Joshua and @Mira luring bettors there with liquidity, i think. (Thanks for the arbitrage mana 😁)
@marketwise Not luring, just what I thought the odds were when there was no 50% resolution possibility in those markets
@MichaelSmith1e9f She was able to take the schizophrenic energy of the modern age and allow 20% of the population to projecting their feelings and connections onto a Drive-level protagonist that makes pleasant music.
Probably saved WW3
@SemioticRivalry Message me? This is the only time I've really tried to be quick to a Manifold resolution, and even with my scripts I was ~10 seconds behind you, so I'm curious!