In early 2028, will an AI be able to generate a full high-quality movie to a prompt?
2.7K
44K
11K
2028
36%
chance

IE "make me a 120 minute Star Trek / Star Wars crossover". It should be more or less comparable to a big-budget studio film, although it doesn't have to pass a full Turing Test as long as it's pretty good. The AI doesn't have to be available to the public, as long as it's confirmed to exist.

Get Ṁ200 play money
Sort by:
opened a Ṁ2,000 YES at 40% order

Large limits at 40 if anyone wants to buy it back down

bought Ṁ900 NO from 37% to 35%
bought Ṁ500 NO

Why did this just spike?

@benshindel I wondered the same thing. I don't understand the trade history even - it looks like no one bought it to 45%? Just Acceleration filling a NO limit order.

@ChrisPrichard Ya this makes no sense???

@benshindel I suspect this was the reason and the order history is just bugged

@admissions It was at 34% before the bot trade, not 35. Wheras the trade before @ThomasM brought it to 35%.

I think it's just coincidence that user decided to empty their account into the GiveWell fund (I hope they're doing okay)

@NoRespect It's probably because of the pivot. People are selling to donate before the mana value drops.

@NoRespect I sold my investment of M1,100. Moved the market by a little. I'm selling everything to donate before the pivot.

ah, I'm learning about this now.

@NoRespect It's... not great. I encourage selling what you have now, even at a loss, because after the pivot your mana value will be decreased to a tenth. Deadline is April 30.

@NoRespect Helen Keller International is my personal fav.

@TiredCliche Depends how you look at it, for me the mana will acquire (little) monetary value for the first time on May 1st. Then they will probably ban me as an EU user, so..

@admissions I don't understand. Do you just not donate anything to charity? Ever?

@TiredCliche No, never. Is this something people routinely do? I heard they spend most money on admin stuff?

mods should probably change title since it's misleading

@jim How so? Also, the creator is sometimes around, if needed they can edit things before it should be escalated to mods.

@chrisjbillington because it can be achieved "in 2028" but this market still resolve NO.

I don't think creator will notice my suggestion, and I don't think he would min a minor change (even just substituting "in" for "by" would be an improvement) for clarification.

@jim @chrisjbillington

1) I don’t think it’s confusing, it could resolve NO on January 1st as it would be “in 2028” if an AI would not be able to do so. It would be equally confusing to a different set of people if it referred to the end of the year.

2) Still, you have a point, Chris is it possible for mods to just edit the description to add a line like “Resolves on January 1st, 2028” or whatever?

@chrisjbillington has he made any comments in this market? He's well known, but he's not exactly active here.

This is not the first time this question has come up. It's non-standard language in the title, compared to similar manifold markets. The close date is a clue, but some markets are made to close before they resolve. I think the only place this is made clear is off of manifold which is a bit unfair to those who don't follow Scott elsewhere.

@benshindel Agreed on both counts. Edited to "In early 2028", since i don't think Scott is committing to check as of a specific date. Just when he gets around to checking all his predictions.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/vasa-1/

Very impressive technology for animating faces (expressions, mouth movements...), this kind of technology could be incorporated into the pipeline of a film generator.

@ersatz it wouldn't pass a full Turing test, but it's pretty good.

not sure about "high quality" but i do think they could make movies by 2028

opened a Ṁ444 YES at 33% order

@DallasSchmidt If you're playing this market, don't forget the "low quality" market:

bought Ṁ90 YES

Looking forward to seeing this pop off when GPT-5 drops

@NathanLannan Well, GPT-5 is announced as "Better". If you expect LLM to progress exponentially (whatever that means), I suppose better is not enough.

More related questions