Will Dell announce a partnership on an AI factory with Grok? Same energy.

There’s even a suggested community note on Twitter.

The only party who talked about a “partnership” was OpenAI. Apple did not use any terms like “partnership”, contrary to what was required for a Yes resolution, according to the market creator. People with stakes in Yes arguing that the market should be resolved to Yes by attaching screenshots of OpenAI talking about a “partnership” are missing the point of the market, which is on whether Apple acknowledges it as a partnership during WWDC (which they did not, neither during the event nor in the press release). The market creator has explicitly stated that both parties need to acknowledge it as a partnership. Only OpenAI did. The market should be resolved to No.

An official statement during the main keynote of WWDC 2024 is needed

No such statement has been made by Apple in the keynote or in the press release.

would resolve YES if both Apple and OpenAI acknowledge it as a partnership, collaboration, or similar term, and NO otherwise.

No such term was used by Apple. These words were only used by OpenAI.

I initially bought Yes at 70%, seeing that ChatGPT will be available from Siri; I then noticed the criteria that there should be a “partnership” or similar acknowledged by Apple, which they did not and I didn’t expect them to, seeing how they avoid using words implying any sort of a partnership during the livestream, so I sold Yes (with a profit) and bought No shares, expecting that what happened in terms of Apple’s comms would happen.

The market resolving to Yes is a clear violation of the resolution criteria stated by the market creator.

With the full quote:

An official statement during the main keynote of WWDC 2024 is needed, something like "we partnered with OpenAI to improve Siri" or "Siri will be running the latest OpenAI models" (non-exhaustive list).

This clearly happened. Quote from the keynote: "We built support into Siri, so Siri can tap into ChatGPT's expertise."

there has to be a partnership between Apple and OpenAI. This means that OpenAI cannot treat Apple as a regular customer that is using their API and Apple cannot treat OpenAI as a regular developer. There has to be some active collaboration from both parties.

This also clearly happened, as Apple built ChatGPT natively into Siri and OpenAI calls it a partnership.

This also clearly happened, as Apple built ChatGPT natively into Siri and OpenAI calls it a partnership

You previously stated:

if both Apple and OpenAI acknowledge it as a partnership, collaboration, or similar term, and NO otherwise.

Only OpenAI calls it a partnership. Apple does not. The “both” condition isn’t met.

Question for Manifold devs and mods.

Is it intended that I have -1 prize points for losing on this market? If it is just ignore this comment.

@Haws I have got negative prize points before when some market reresolved on the opposite side.

@Haws afaict that only happens when you have loans in a market that resolves against you and is a prize point market. you lose all your shares, and have to pay back the loans in prize points, I think. Without loans it should not happen at all

@Bayesian are loans still a thing? I thought that was removed with the change in Mana value.

I guess it's possible I bet on this market when loans were a thing. Not a huge deal was mainly wondering if it was a bug or intended.

@Haws You can't get new loans, but if you took loans while they were enabled they're still there.

@Haws That shouldn't give you negative prize points though, it should only affect your mana balance.

I thought the only way to get negative prize points is to win them, redeem them, and then have them taken back when a market is re-resolved.

@TimothyJohnson5c16 perhaps this is a bug then?

@Haws Yeah, I think so.

If this market resolves Yes, then what is the point of having 2 markets? One about partnership in general, another "specifically about siri" but resolves according to the first market.

@KongoLandwalker I know you're familiar with logical implication (A->B), so your comment comes a bit as a surprise. Despite one implying the other, the markets are not identical: this could've been NO while the other YES, had they not mentioned specifically Siri built-in support for ChatGPT.

@deagol i did not see the part "specifically siri built-in", so i expected No and Yes resolutions. The markets were originally different enough, but then market creator blurred the strictness of this one, so it created the question: "if this market was meant to be so broad, why 2 markets were created?" - this contains the same idea as the "implication" you were surprised with.

(It is not an implication, because it is not a statement; it is a question, which rises in the specific scenario).

@KongoLandwalker This market didn’t need the partnership to be exclusively about Siri.

If, for example, they partnered solely on the proofread/rewrite feature then this would’ve resolved no and the other market would’ve resolved yes.

@KongoLandwalker

The implication I meant was, "if this is YES then the other is YES" and its contrapositive "if the other is NO then this one is NO".

@Predict question being general/vague (not exclusive) is what makes things blurry and problematic.

As an example you presented a case which would obviously create no misunderstanding. Not efficient example.

...

May 19 update says there has to be active participation of both parties. From press release i read, that Siri just sends a request to chatgpt. That does not fit into "active participation".

@deagol I do not see the point of your messages to me. I do not understand what you are talking about and why you use abstract statements here. Does not look relevant, because i did not use implication. I used a question.

Your "1 => 1" and "0 <= 0" are only confusing. Stop talking binary please.

@deagol i start from the beginning:

When questions become too similar, (their % differ less then 1%), it becomes useless to track both.

This question became more similar to the other one (we do not care whether they have any causal relation, only probability is at scope of the problem). I would definitely give <1% to "will apple decide to be left out of the ai race?" - which is the major part of the differences of the questions.

@KongoLandwalker sorry, I didn't mean to bother you, just seemed you were asking for clarity about the relationship between the two different markets.

I'm not talking binary, just stating that the criteria for this market to resolve YES are more strict, and thus implies the other would resolve YES as well. Thus A->B where this is A and the other is B.

I'll leave you be now. Again, my apologies for butting in.

@deagol Don't be sorry. I just think you missed my point and started explaining irrelevant thing. I know that if more narrow question resolves yes then the broader also resolves yes - it is just not the theme i started talking about.

@Predict talking about active participation:

Did OpenAI provide some special terms to Apple to not treat it like an ordinary service-customer relation?

I am interested in it, did OpenAI decided to not charge Siri requests, or something else?

@KongoLandwalker ok so, I thought you were saying this difference was not real or had been eliminated somehow. I would not say that the only possible majority of the difference (what you reference as 1%) is "Apple decides to be left out of AI" so it's still hard for me to follow along your interpretation.

@deagol I think if you create a scenario, where collab exists, but nothing is done to apple's assistant, i would shortly characterise it as particular case of apple being left out of the race.

And then I evaluate all such space of scenarios as 1%, because apple in my opinion would not want to be left out.

Because of that, questions do look too similar. They would not be so similar, of the siri question was narrower/stricter.

I am sorry if i look like an idiot here.

I just do not get 2 things.

What has OpenAI done to call it a partnership?

Do people think, that "if current information is enough for yes resolution, then questions are still different enough to have had different probabilities"?

@KongoLandwalker I would put the majority of the gap (between this and the other market) on Apple does stuff to Siri unrelated to a chatbot, without requiring OpenAI's help (which they also did on top of the ChatGPT callouts), yet do collab with OpenAI for other system-wide stuff, just not Siri.

Another big source of difference is what they say in the keynote as opposed to what they actually do behind the scenes, a likely scenario being they explain everything about Apple Intelligence and the Siri update just as they did but without mentioning OpenAI or ChatGPT, and only in the final summary they say "to start off, we are collab with OpenAI for some of this, enforcing data privacy safeguards etc etc." That would also result in NO here and YES there.

@KongoLandwalker re: what is considered a partnership. Would you consider Apple's deal with Google to be its default search engine a partnership? It's just rev share TAC payments from Google to Apple, and hardly any collab. Just wondering if that deal would be considered a partnership. Not that I think it's the same case with OpenAI (I think there likely is more collab here, and payments probably go the other way, more like a license).