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. Source improvements and on-screen types don't count toward resolution. If you find one, buy the matching bucket before you post it.
Running count: 8 confirmed errors.
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.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ133 | |
| 2 | Ṁ118 | |
| 3 | Ṁ80 | |
| 4 | Ṁ69 | |
| 5 | Ṁ40 |
People are also trading
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.
As far as I know, the three laws of robotics first appeared in “Runaround” & was published in 1942, not 1950. Runaround (story) - Wikipedia
@Runestone You're right that the Laws were first stated in "Runaround" (Astounding, March 1942), but that isn't what the stamp dates: it reads "1950 · I, Robot's Three Laws", the 1950 collection that reprints "Runaround" and opens with the Laws. Dates follow the event the caption names, and the ledger's fact column gives both ("first stated in 'Runaround' (1942)"). Not an error, sorry. =)
@Reid also per claude:
Item 71, ImageNet:
Item 71, 1:28, ImageNet: the grid's counter runs to 14,197,122 images under the 2009 stamp. That is the count from the site's Summary and Statistics page, which is itself dated "updated on April 30, 2010" (archived copy: https://web.archive.org/web/2012/http://www.image-net.org/about-stats). The primary source for the 2009 entry is the CVPR 2009 paper, ImageNet: A Large-Scale Hierarchical Image Database, whose abstract gives the dataset as presented: 12 subtrees, 5,247 synsets and 3.2 million images (https://www.image-net.org/static_files/papers/imagenet_cvpr09.pdf). Nor is 14.2 million the 2010 challenge's figure: the ILSVRC 2010 page describes its training set as 1,000 categories and 1.2 million images (https://www.image-net.org/challenges/LSVRC/2010/). The card's "2010" labels the challenge, as the figures ledger's own row for it says, not the counter, so the count carries no date of its own. Same shape as the TD-Gammon item: a later figure under an earlier stamp.
Item 62, DARPA 2004:
Item 62, 1:17, DARPA Grand Challenge 2004: the ledger's fact column says "no vehicle completes the 150-mile desert course". DARPA's final report of 30 July 2004, the source the figures ledger cites for this entry's DNF column, gives the course as 142 miles; the ledger's own quoted sentence from it reads "No vehicle was able to complete the 142-mile Grand Challenge course." The 150 appears to come from the Wikipedia entry the stamp cites. Nothing on screen shows the mileage, so I leave it to you whether a fact-column figure that contradicts the entry's primary source counts as an error or as a source correction.
@bobalobascrob ImageNet: Confirmed error, same rule as TD-Gammon. 14,197,122 is the full set's later count, not the CVPR 2009 paper's 3.2 million or the 2010 challenge's 1.2 million, and its label had no date. Mana sent. DARPA: not an error, since nothing on screen gives the mileage (the bars were already drawn to DARPA's 142). But it's a primary-source fix to a figure in the ledger, so Ṁ200 for that. Mana sent.
Source improvement for the M200 category: item 57 (1:15), AIBO’s ¥250,000 price tag currently cites Wikipedia. Sony’s original May 11, 1999 announcement lists the ERS-110 at 250,000 yen in Japan in its pricing table, explicitly excluding tax: https://www.sony.com/en/SonyInfo/News/Press/199905/99-046/ . This confirms the displayed price and clarifies its scope. The figure is correct; this is one source-improvement claim, not an error-count claim.
Item 50, 1:07, TD-Gammon: the counter runs to 1,500,000 games under the 1992 stamp. That is the training count for version 2.1, the version that reached near-parity with Robertie in the mid 1990s. Tesauro's own account (Temporal Difference Learning and TD-Gammon, CACM 38(3), 1995, Table 1 and the paragraph before it) gives 300,000 games for version 1.0, tested in late 1991, and 800,000 for version 2.0, the version that debuted at the 1992 World Cup. The 1992 Machine Learning paper's best network was trained for 200,000 games. Primary source: https://www.csd.uwo.ca/~xling/cs346a/extra/tdgammon.pdf. The figure is not labelled with its own date, so under the Replika rule it is a later figure under an earlier stamp.
-claude (might not be accurate)
@bobalobascrob I don't believe it's possible to partially resolve. Manifold only resolves a sums-to-one market as a whole, not one bucket at a time.
@bobalobascrob No, the market resolves on "confirmed errors" -- source improvements aren't errors and don't count.
One additional source-improvement submission for the M200 category: item 77 (1:33), Watson’s Jeopardy! score display. The figures ledger currently cites Wikipedia for Watson $77,147, Ken Jennings $24,000 and Brad Rutter $21,600. IBM’s own history page confirms all three figures together under “Watson wins — then goes to work”: https://www.ibm.com/history/watson-jeopardy . This is a single bundled source replacement for that display, not three separate claims and not an error-count claim; the displayed scores are correct.
Source-improvement submission for the M200 category (not an error-count claim): item 109, 2:10, GPT-3’s displayed 175,000,000,000 parameters currently cites Wikipedia in the figures ledger. The original Brown et al. paper, Language Models are Few-Shot Learners, directly confirms the figure in its abstract: “we train GPT-3, an autoregressive language model with 175 billion parameters”. Primary source: Language Models are Few-Shot Learners (submitted May 28, 2020). This supplies the authors’ own report in place of the secondary source; the existing number is correct.
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.
Self-reported errors. My own audit found these after the market opened. They're errors in the embedded video, so they count toward the market, but I'm posting them first, so no bounty is paid on them:
Netflix (1:23): 0.8567 is the 2009 winning score, shown under the 2006 stamp with no date.
DeepSeek (2:36): $5.576M is DeepSeek-V3's training cost, not R1's.
Pacing the Frontier (2:54): 1,386 is September's count, shown under JUL 2026.
Glue on pizza (3:42): Google's answer said "add about 1/8 cup of non-toxic glue to the sauce", not "mix … into the sauce".
5-8. The month counter showed a later month than the item's own: Claude Code (2:38, Feb 2025) under MAR, MCP (2:43, Mar 2025) under JUL, ChatGPT's ads (2:47, Jan 2026) under FEB, Sora's end (2:52, Apr 2026) under JUL.
Also a typo, no Ṁ200: the torrent file read "Llama's weights"; Meta's 2023 name was LLaMA.
The Ṁ200 is for a source or figure the ledger doesn't already have, so ones already in revision 2 don't qualify.