Resolves YES if GPT-5 is publicly released before Jan 1, 2025; resolves NO otherwise.

Update from March 18: If the next OpenAI flagship model deviates from the GPT-N naming scheme 

 that is going to be released from OpenAI (e.g. they completely changed the trajectory of their naming scheme) then I will count it as "GPT-5" regardless.

However, if the next flagship model is not called GPT-5 but still conforms to the OpenAI GPT-N naming scheme (e.g. GPT-4.5) 

there will eventually be a model called GPT-5

 that will be released (i.e. they are going to continue with the same naming scheme) then I will not count it as "GPT-5".

🤖 AI

🖥️ Technology

🤖 OpenAI

GPT-5 Speculation

ChatGPT

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.

Scott Alexander's 5 year predictions

Technology

AI Media Creation

This question resolves to YES if during at least one of the main (non-VP) 2024 general presidential election debates in the United States, the moderator asks at least two separate questions directly related to artificial intelligence, such as the potential for job losses due to AI automation, or existential risk from AI. This question also resolves to YES if AI is otherwise brought up by a candidate in the context of a question unrelated to AI and ALL candidates talk about AI at least once during the same debate, with at least one of the candidates saying "AI", "artificial intelligence", "robots" or a close synonym at least three separate times, at least five seconds apart, during the same debate. Otherwise, this question resolves to NO.

Asking "at least two separate questions" means that the moderator must pose two semantically distinct and individual queries, each intended to elicit a unique response, specifically about artificial intelligence. In other words, simply repeating the same question doesn't count as two separate questions, even if the question is asked twice, first to one candidate, and then a second time to the other candidate. Moreover, asking two distinct questions without waiting for the answer to the first one counts as two separate questions for the purpose of this question. For example, a clear positive instance would be asking first, "How do you plan to manage the existential risks from AI?" and then later asking, "What are your proposals to mitigate job loss due to automation from AI?" These are two separate questions because they cover different facets of artificial intelligence—existential risk and employment. A clear negative example would be if the moderator simply asked, "How do you plan to manage the existential risks from AI?" to one candidate, and then later said "Same question to you" to the other candidate. Even though the question is asked twice, it's not considered two "separate" questions because it's a repetition of the same query.

When it comes to questions related to automation and job losses, the key factor that determines whether the question is "directly related to artificial intelligence" is whether the moderator mentions AI technologies or AI companies, such as ChatGPT, OpenAI, generative AI, or neural networks; any question will automatically qualify if the moderator says the word "AI" or "artificial intelligence" in the question. General questions about automation or job losses that don't clearly link back to AI won't be considered "directly related to artificial intelligence". For example, the following questions would NOT count as being directly related to artificial intelligence:

If there are no 2024 general presidential election debates, this question resolves to N/A.

US Politics

🗳️ Politics

presidential debate

This market resolves to the streaming service that has higher viewership in Nielsen's April 2024 viewership report (whatever looks similar to that link).

🎥 Movies

🍿 Entertainment and Pop Culture

💼  Business

🎨 Culture

2023 is trending to be the hottest year on record.

🪸 Climate

Global Warming 

🧪 Science

Companion paper here with description of synthesis:

Updating to answer some more common questions. If anything here differs from the 2023-07-27 update, this update should supersede that one. I believe what I have written below maintains the spirit of the market and preserves its predictivity against weird edge cases. 

This question is specifically about LK-99. In the absence of overwhelming expert consensus (see below about resolution caveats), adding materials not in the original synthesis or characterization (replacing Cu with Au, Ag, etc) will not count toward a YES resolution. 

original XRD is OK, up to a point. I think I would be more accepting of this is it’s convincingly shown that the impurities are important to the superconductivity of LK-99. 

Synthesis of LK-99 by other means is totally fine, as long as the material characterization satisfies the criteria above. 

The original intent of this market was to bet on whether LK-99 exhibited the hallmarks of traditional superconductivity, but there have been a few questions on what happens if LK-99 is regions of 1D superconductivity in an insulating matrix, so it doesn’t display the expected R = 0 behavior below Tc. 

At this point, I’m going to hew to the original resolution criteria, in order of importance. 

While superconductor-insulator transitions have been observed, I’m not really familiar with them. Additionally, we don’t have good evidence that it is impossible to observe R=0 in LK-99, since at least 

 measurements show decreasing resistivity as a function of temperature. If we end up in a world where LK-99 convincingly displays a Meissner effect, but doesn’t show the expected resistivity behavior, I will solicit opinions from subject matter experts. After all, it would seem perverse to resolve NO if the majority of superconductivity experts think this is a YES.

I reserve the right to resolve to a probability if the experts I ask are split on the question of superconductivity.

I reserve the right to resolve according to whatever Wikipedia says about this material by Jan 1, 2025, especially if the experts I ask blow me off.

I reserve the right to revisit the resolution criteria if LK-99 or LK-99-like materials end up rewriting what we thought we knew about superconductivity. 

********************************************

Pasting my comment on resolution criteria

We're clearly all here because a) it's fun, and b) we're interested in room temperature superconductivity, not whether some other experimental group gets the same kinda sus data as the original paper. So, when I write 'replicate' in the question I am specifically asking: is the room temperature, ambient pressure superconductivity of the compound LK-99 convincingly demonstrated?

Specifically, replications should convincingly demonstrate:

If synthesizing the compound, there should be evidence that they did make something essentially the same as what is reported in the original paper. 

 not be required for a quantum well superconductor. I think I see how this could be the case. Willing to adjust this criterion after receiving more info from relevant theorists/experimentalists. 

I don't intend to require that replications be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The arXiv is sufficient for me. However, I do intend to wait a few weeks/months to resolve so that any pre-print can be adequately investigated for data manipulation, fraud, etc. In my utopia, labs that claim to have confirmed/disconfirmed this effect would also publish their raw data with their arXiv submissions, but I'm not holding my breath. 

Since high Tc superconductivity is not my specific field of expertise, I'm willing to defer to a consensus of subject matter experts on whether a pre-print is convincing or not, and I am willing to contact some beyond the usual twitter personalities.

Science

superconductivity

LK-99

To be resolved by scientific consensus, as measured by a survey of peer-reviewed papers on June 1, 2024. Papers will be identified by a Google Scholar search for "LK-99 1D superconductivity."  If no clear consensus, market resolves to PROB: a weighted average of paper conclusions judged by whether they support a thesis of 1D superconductivity (100%), argue against it (0%), or are neutral (50%), with the weights provided by the 2023 impact factors of the journals they appear in. If no relevant papers have been published, but papers relevant for other LK-99 properties exist, the question resolves NO.

To maintain objectivity in judging, the creator of this market will not trade in it.

🏟️ Sports

Premier League 2023-2024

Premier League

iPhone

🍎 Apple

Smartphones

#Politics #USPolitics #Elections #JoeBiden

2024 US Presidential Election

The Life of Biden

Global Macro

Politics

Gerontocracy

🔦Subsidy Spotlight

2023 Market of the Year Candidates

Resolves YES if Trump picks white male as his choice for vice president.

"White" means at least 3/4 biological grandparents are of European or Middle Eastern descent. "Male" means they identify as a male (i.e. Caitlyn Jenner wouldn't count).

Resolves NO if Trump picks a non-white or non-male person for VP.

Resolves N/A if Trump is not a presidential nominee or is for some reason unable to pick a nominee (e.g. stroke). Also resolves N/A if Trump changes his official VP pick before I can resolve the market (e.g. death of VP pick).

🇺🇸 US Politics

🇺🇸 2024 US Presidential Election

👴 Trump

2024 Republican Primaries

2024 Primaries

2024 US Election

United States

Vice President

🐘 Republican Party

2024 Matt Yglesias Predictions

Yes means that the US reschedules cannabis (marijuana) to be other than Schedule 1, or deschedules it entirely.

No means that cannabis remains Schedule 1.

The bill must have passed and been signed by the president if the action is legislative.

Cannabis

Drugs

Drug Policy

Will cannabis be removed from Schedule I of the Controlled Substance Act before 2025?

This question will resolve Yes if, before January 1, 2025, marijuana is officially classified as something other than a schedule I drug in the US. If it is later reclassified as a schedule I drug, the question still resolves Yes.

Fine print and additional background information can be found 

Once the original resolves, its resolution will be applied to this market automatically. Trustworthy-ish users are encouraged to resolve this market before then if the outcome is known and unambiguous. Feel free to ping @jskf to request early resolution or to report issues.

Metaculus

ACX 2024 Prediction Contest

Scheduling

College Protesters Make Divestment From Israel a Rallying Cry

Will any US college announce plans to divest from Israel, in response to protests by June (assumed to be the end of the school year)?

Announcements from university presidents or boards here will count, even if the divestment does not begin by June (i.e. “we will begin divesting from Israel-supporting stocks in 2024” would Resolve YES).

🇮🇱🇵🇸 Israel-Hamas Conflict

Colleges & Universities

🇮🇱 Israel

Arab-Israeli Conflict

'r':4 'r-sc':3 'sc':5 'scott':2 'senat':6 'tim':1

'elis':1 'ny':5 'r':4 'r-ni':3 'repres':6 'stefanik':2

'governor':5 'kristi':1 'noem':2 'r':3 'sd':4

'd':3 'governor':5 'gretchen':1 'michigan':4 'whitmer':2

Resolves to the person who wins the majority of votes for US President in the 

, or selected by Congress following the contingency procedure in the 

Resolves provisionally if both the Associated Press projects a winner and the losing major party candidate concedes.

How "Other" works: I will add more top candidates to this question. If you bet on "Other" that is the same as betting on all candidates that are added after your bet.

Resolves as YES if it is possible for the median consumer to purchase a brain computer interface (BCI) that enables them to experience VR indistinguishable from the real world before January 1st 2034.

In order for this question to resolve as YES, such a device must be available for purchase (or free) for at least 90% of adult consumers in at least 4 of the following countries: USA, UK, France, Japan, India, Canada, Australia, Germany, Italy.

The VR experience must be possible to run for at least 1 hour every day for a whole year. This must have been demonstrated for each candidate device with successful human trials on at least 50 individuals that began at least one year prior to this question's end date. The VR experience must replicate the following senses: sight, hearing, smell, touch, taste, acceleration, proprioception. This replication must occur without the body of the user moving in significant ways.

If capitalism is not yet abolished in each respective country on this question's end date, then the cost of installation and running/maintaining this interface for a year must be less than 10% of that country's median income. If the country in question is no longer running consumer capitalism at this time, then available metrics will be used to determine purchasing power equivalents. In either case, at least 2% of the adult population must have installed one of these devices on this question's end date. Both reversible and irreversible BCI implants are acceptable in the context of this question.

The device must include an interface to the user's brain or nervous system. Additional interfaces (e.g. screens, cameras, speakers, microphones) between the device and the user are acceptable.

Neurotech

Braincomputer interface

Virtual Reality

IPL yes

IPL2024

There are now two Boeing whistleblowers who have died: Joshua Dean and John Barnett. Here's an article on Dean:

https://www.npr.org/2024/05/02/1248693512/boeing-whistleblower-josh-dean-dead

I will resolve this market based on apparent media consensus, based on preponderance of evidence -- if it seems like 50% +1 of major American media publications with an opinion on the case seem to agree that foul play was involved, we'll resolve YES.

Note that this market is for ANY Boeing whistleblower, which includes Dean, Barnett, and any past or future ones that may appear.

A Boeing whistleblower is defined as anyone who has in the past, or has ever been scheduled to, give negative testimony against Boeing, Spirit Airlines, or any of Boeing's suppliers.

This market resolves NO if January 1, 2027 rolls around and there's no consensus yet, or the consensus is that no foul play was involved.

Conspiracy Theories

Boeing

https://gsaauctions.gov/auctions/preview/282996

Resolves based on the highest bid, even if the reserve is still not met and no sale is actually made. I'll ignore cancelled/unpaid bids if I find out about any.

Any of {MIT, Stanford, Brown, Yale, Harvard, Princeton, CMU, Berkeley, CCS}

'berkeley':10 'brown':5 'ccs':11 'cmu':9 'harvard':7 'mit':3 'princeton':8 'stanford':4 'yale':6

Every "safety" (Davis, UCSC, UIUC, UMaryland)

'davi':3 'everi':1 'safeti':2 'ucsc':4 'uiuc':5 'umaryland':6

A majority (≥11) of colleges I applied to

'cs':6 'joint':7 'major':8 'math':5 'math-c':4 'uiuc':1

The college I ultimately attend, off the waitlist

'attend':5 'colleg':2 'ultim':4 'waitlist':8

Any Ivy/MIT/Stanford while being rejected from Davis or UCSC or UIUC or UMaryland

'davi':7 'ivy/mit/stanford':2 'reject':5 'ucsc':9 'uiuc':11 'umaryland':13

Please keep this market private; don't send it to people or discuss it with anyone who isn't on the market! Maybe it’s irrational, but I've just been sort of anxious about making it for awhile now, and don’t want it to be super public.

Let me know if you have any other fun ideas for prop bets, I might add them!

I've compiled a table of relevant statistics about each college for forecasting. Feel free to ask questions, but I may opt not to answer them. Don't worry about the tiers, they're just my rough effort to quantify my interest in attending each of the colleges.

General App Information (god it feels weird to write this all out publicly)

I won't bet much, if at all, for the sake of my own well-being.

General policy for my markets: In the rare event of a conflict between my resolution criteria and the agreed-upon common-sense spirit of the market, I may resolve it according to the market's spirit or N/A, probably after discussion.