A four-minute song about the history of AI. The video stamps each of its 199 entries with a year, a caption and a source as it's sung, and draws most of them. The ledger behind it is public: We Didn't Write the Weights - The Ledger (every entry with its year, fact and source, and every figure drawn on screen with the sentence it comes from).
Resolves to the number of distinct confirmed errors posted in the comments before close. If you find one, buy the matching bucket before you post it.
On top of the market, I'll pay by managram:
Ṁ$1,000 per confirmed error: a year, caption, quote or on-screen figure that contradicts its primary source (the organization's own release, the paper, the filing, the official results). Up to Ṁ$5,000 total.
Ṁ$200 for a better primary source that confirms or sharpens a figure, or a typo on screen.
How I'll judge:
Primary sources win. Where Wikipedia or a news story disagrees with the primary source, the ledger follows the primary source, and that isn't an error. The stamp's domain sources the entry; figures drawn on the stage have their own sources, in the second table of the ledger.
Dates follow the event the caption names. Where a thing has several dates (preprint vs. publication, release vs. adoption, a project's start vs. its thesis), the caption says which we dated, and preferring the other isn't an error. The fact column usually records both.
A later figure is allowed when it's labelled with its own date.
Lyric phrasing and sung respellings ("Myth-oss") aren't errors if the stamp's fact is right. Omissions and "you should have included X" don't count.
First to post a qualifying error gets it. I'll answer every comment and rule within a day.
I made the video, I'm the judge and I'm paying, so I won't argue a loss: if your source beats mine, you win. I won't trade on this market.
1,000Known judgment calls, posted before trading. Under the rules above these aren't errors; a primary source that beats mine still is.
Stanley's time: the stage shows 6:53:58, from DARPA's release and Thrun et al. (2006). Wikipedia has 6:53:08 in one place, unsourced. The stamp's wikipedia.org sources the entry (Stanley won), not the figure.
Kismet, 1997: when the work began, per MIT News, not Breazeal's 2000 thesis.
Cat paper, 2011: the arXiv preprint (Dec 2011), not ICML 2012.
Deepfakes, 2018: Reddit's ban of r/deepfakes (Feb 2018), as the caption says, not the 2017 coinage.
MCP, March 2025: OpenAI's adoption, as the caption says; Anthropic's release was Nov 2024.
Unitree, Feb 2026: the Spring Festival Gala flips, not the 2025 Gala dance or the Shanghai listing.
Replika: the counter's 10 million is labelled "users by 2023" under the 2017 launch stamp.
P(doom): the reel settles on 10%, one published estimate (Ord's, in Wikipedia's table), not a claim about the right number; the entry is dated 2023, when the phrase went mainstream, not when it was coined.
Known judgment calls, posted before trading. Under the rules above these aren't errors; a primary source that beats mine still is.
Stanley's time: the stage shows 6:53:58, from DARPA's release and Thrun et al. (2006). Wikipedia has 6:53:08 in one place, unsourced. The stamp's wikipedia.org sources the entry (Stanley won), not the figure.
Kismet, 1997: when the work began, per MIT News, not Breazeal's 2000 thesis.
Cat paper, 2011: the arXiv preprint (Dec 2011), not ICML 2012.
Deepfakes, 2018: Reddit's ban of r/deepfakes (Feb 2018), as the caption says, not the 2017 coinage.
MCP, March 2025: OpenAI's adoption, as the caption says; Anthropic's release was Nov 2024.
Unitree, Feb 2026: the Spring Festival Gala flips, not the 2025 Gala dance or the Shanghai listing.
Replika: the counter's 10 million is labelled "users by 2023" under the 2017 launch stamp.
P(doom): the reel settles on 10%, one published estimate (Ord's, in Wikipedia's table), not a claim about the right number; the entry is dated 2023, when the phrase went mainstream, not when it was coined.