Start date: April 9 , 2024
End date: April 9, 2025
Market with a longer timeline:
inspired from this tweet by Andrej Karpathy:
Btw writing the llm.c training code would imo be a very interesting, impressive, self-contained and very meta challenge for LLM agents.
The prompt is: Take the PyTorch code train_gpt2.py And write, compile and unit test a single .c file that reproduces the training: train_gpt2.c
The current models are not there, but we can check back in a year or two or so. If that worked...
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ172 | |
| 2 | Ṁ34 | |
| 3 | Ṁ32 | |
| 4 | Ṁ21 | |
| 5 | Ṁ11 |
People are also trading
@Eliza Probably seems Kind of hard to verify one way or another so Probably N/A unless you can verify wheter or Not AI can do whats asked in the question.
@winged_one IMHO, defaulting to resolving NA is not a great practice for markets like this.
If YES bettors have not presented an example, and a quick google doesn't show anyone talking about it, then I think it should default to NO. Having to show that something hasn't happened or isn't possible (across all the various LLMs) in order to resolve NO is quite a burden.
We could try it ourselves, (gpt2.py is here) but most of us lack the expertise to judge the result, at least without spending an unreasonable amount of time.
I think resolve NO and clarify in the 2026 market that resolution will be NO if evidence isn't presented by YES bettors or available from a quick google search.
@firstuserhere thanks for thinking of me! I'm usually willing to bet a lot on priors, but there are just too many idiosyncrasies here (how much can it just copy existing code, how many times will this be attempted, how good are Devin/etc. at this particular sort of coding, etc.) for me to take a significant position, especially against anyone who has actually looked into this.