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

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

'2':4 '7':6 'leg':3 'may':5 'psg':1 'win':2

Borussia Dortmund wins ⚽ (Leg 2 | May 7)

'2':5 '7':7 'borussia':1 'dortmund':2 'leg':4 'may':6 'win':3

'2':7 '7':9 'draw':5 'end':2 'leg':6 'match':1 'may':8

Over 2.5 goals scored ⚽ (Leg 2 | May 7)

'2':6 '2.5':2 '7':8 'goal':3 'leg':5 'may':7 'score':4

Over 4.5 goals scored ⚽ (Leg 2 | May 7)

'2':6 '4.5':2 '7':8 'goal':3 'leg':5 'may':7 'score':4

Borussia Dortmund first to score ⚽ (Leg 2 | May 7)

'2':7 '7':9 'borussia':1 'dortmund':2 'first':3 'leg':6 'may':8 'score':5

'2':6 '7':8 'goal':2 'leg':5 'may':7 'score':4

Over 7.5 corner kicks ⚽ (Leg 2 | May 7)

'2':6 '7':8 '7.5':2 'corner':3 'kick':4 'leg':5 'may':7

Over 3.5 yellow cards given ⚽ (Leg 2 | May 7)

'2':7 '3.5':2 '7':9 'card':4 'given':5 'leg':6 'may':8 'yellow':3

Penalty kick is missed ⚽ (Leg 2 | May 7)

'2':6 '7':8 'kick':2 'leg':5 'may':7 'miss':4 'penalti':1

Match is tied at halftime ⚽ (Leg 2 | May 7)

'2':7 '7':9 'halftim':5 'leg':6 'match':1 'may':8 'tie':3

Both teams score 1+ goals in 2nd half ⚽ (Leg 2 | May 7)

'1':4 '2':10 '2nd':7 '7':12 'goal':5 'half':8 'leg':9 'may':11 'score':3 'team':2

Goal is scored during stoppage time ⚽ (Leg 2 | May 7)

'2':8 '7':10 'goal':1 'leg':7 'may':9 'score':3 'stoppag':5 'time':6

Sancho scores 1+ goals ⚽ (Leg 2 | May 7)

'1':3 '2':6 '7':8 'goal':4 'leg':5 'may':7 'sancho':1 'score':2

Füllkrug scores 1+ goals ⚽ (Leg 2 | May 7)

'1':3 '2':6 '7':8 'füllkrug':1 'goal':4 'leg':5 'may':7 'score':2

'1':3 '2':6 '7':8 'goal':4 'leg':5 'may':7 'reus':1 'score':2

Hummels scores 1+ goals ⚽ (Leg 2 | May 7)

'1':3 '2':6 '7':8 'goal':4 'hummel':1 'leg':5 'may':7 'score':2

Adeyemi scores 1+ goals ⚽ (Leg 2 | May 7)

'1':3 '2':6 '7':8 'adeyemi':1 'goal':4 'leg':5 'may':7 'score':2

Dembélé scores 1+ goals ⚽ (Leg 2 | May 7)

'1':3 '2':6 '7':8 'dembélé':1 'goal':4 'leg':5 'may':7 'score':2

Mbappé scores 1+ goals ⚽ (Leg 2 | May 7)

'1':3 '2':6 '7':8 'goal':4 'leg':5 'may':7 'mbappé':1 'score':2

Kang-in scores 1+ goals ⚽ (Leg 2 | May 7)

'1':5 '2':8 '7':10 'goal':6 'kang':2 'kang-in':1 'leg':7 'may':9 'score':4

Ramos scores 1+ goals ⚽ (Leg 2 | May 7)

'1':3 '2':6 '7':8 'goal':4 'leg':5 'may':7 'ramo':1 'score':2

Vitinha scores 1+ goals ⚽ (Leg 2 | May 7)

'1':3 '2':6 '7':8 'goal':4 'leg':5 'may':7 'score':2 'vitinha':1

Hakimi gets a yellow card ⚽ (Leg 2 | May 7)

'2':7 '7':9 'card':5 'get':2 'hakimi':1 'leg':6 'may':8 'yellow':4

PSG first to score in 2nd half ⚽ (Leg 2 | May 7)

'2':9 '2nd':6 '7':11 'first':2 'half':7 'leg':8 'may':10 'psg':1 'score':4

'2':6 '7':8 'card':4 'get':2 'leg':5 'may':7 'player':1 'red':3

Player scores a hat trick ⚽ (Leg 2 | May 7)

'2':7 '7':9 'hat':4 'leg':6 'may':8 'player':1 'score':2 'trick':5

Match ends in a draw (regular time) ⚽ (Leg 2 | May 7)

'2':9 '7':11 'draw':5 'end':2 'leg':8 'match':1 'may':10 'regular':6 'time':7

Match goes to extra time ⚽ (Leg 2 | May 7)

'2':7 '7':9 'extra':4 'goe':2 'leg':6 'match':1 'may':8 'time':5

Match ends with penalty shoot-out ⚽ (Leg 2 | May 7)

'2':9 '7':11 'end':2 'leg':8 'match':1 'may':10 'penalti':4 'shoot':6 'shoot-out':5

2024 UEFA Champions League Matches & Prop Bets

⚽ Soccer

🏟️ Sports

UEFA Champions League

⚽ 🏈 Football

Sports Betting

2023-12-09 at 3 PM in Foxborough, MA. Line: Army -2.5.

College Football

Patriots are looking for a new Head Coach

🏈 NFL

This market resolves YES after the NHL officially announces that a team will be based in Atlanta, Georgia metro area, and that team plays a home game. Only the official announcement needs to occur before 1 January 2030; the home game may occur after 1 January 2030.

Criteria must be met after this market creation.

Georgia

Atlanta

Hockey

NHL 🏒

Who will be the next NBA head coach to be fired? 

8th match of the ODI World Cup: Pakistan v Sri Lanka, 4:30 AM ET on October 10th, 2023

Cricket World Cup 2023

Cricket

The cybersecurity strategy published this week covers fiscal years 2024 through 2027 and its primary mission is to ensure the generation, reliability and preservation of warfighting capabilities by protecting operational capabilities, sensitive information, and product integrity.

🇷🇺 Russia

⚔️ Wars

🌍 World

Cybersecurity

Pentagon

Windows

🌐 Internet

Big Tech

Microsoft

💵 Finance

🏦 Economics

📈 Stocks

Resolves yes if photo or video evidence emerges of Elon and Jeff shaking hands anytime after today to 2030.

🚀 Spacex

🚗 Elon musk

🎨 Culture

The Market resolves the Number of Days into May when Starship launches (from 1 to 50)

May 2st resolves as 2 and so on up until June 19th.

If Starship launches before May 1st, it will resolve as 1.

If it launches after June 19th, the market will resolve as 50.

Starship Launch Party

Rockets

#Politics #USPolitics #Elections #JoeBiden

2024 US Presidential Election

The Life of Biden

Global Macro

Politics

US Politics

Gerontocracy

🔦Subsidy Spotlight

2023 Market of the Year Candidates

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

🇺🇸 US Politics

🗳️ Politics

🇺🇸 2024 US Presidential Election

👴 Trump

🐘 Republican Party

2024 Matt Yglesias Predictions

The resolution is to the first nominee formally selected by the Democratic Party (which happens at the Democratic National Convention). If the nominee is later replaced (for example, due to dropping out of the election, death, etc) that does not change the resolution.

If a candidate becomes presumptive nominee after securing a majority of pledged delegates, that is not sufficient for resolution, until formally selected as nominee.

👴🏼 Joe Biden

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

In 2020, Illinois went to Biden by 16.99%, while Indiana went to Trump by 16.07%. Which state will be closer this time around?

2024 US Election

Election margins

Speaker of the House election

🏛 118th Congress

🍿 Entertainment and Pop Culture

🧪 Science

'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.

Affected students' exams are cancelled and mock marks + IA marks are used.

'affect':1 'cancel':5 'exam':3 'ia':9 'mark':8,10 'mock':7 'student':2 'use':12

The paper is cancelled and a retake is offered.

A break can be any amount of time, enough for Shonen Jump to state at the end of chapters if there will be a break before the next one.

“YES” = “Yes, there will be a break after chapter 1114”

“NO” = “No, there will not be a break after chapter 1114”

Plan to close this on official release, will close earlier if known-accurate leakers post any details about a break ahead of time. I do not vote in my own questions.

Release Dates

Manga

🏴‍☠️ One Piece

This market resolves once we have a definitive answer to this question. (i.e. "I've looked at all notable evidence presented by both sides and have upwards of 98% confidence that a certain conclusion is correct, and it doesn't seem likely that any further relevant evidence will be forthcoming any time soon.")

This will likely not occur until many years after Covid is no longer a subject of active political contention, motivations for various actors to distort or hide inconvenient evidence have died down, and a scientific consensus has emerged on the subject. For exactly when it will resolve, see 

I will be conferring with the community extensively before resolving this market, to ensure I haven't missed anything and aren't being overconfident in one direction or another. As some additional assurance, see 

(For comparison, the level of evidence in favor of anthropogenic climate change would be sufficient, despite the existence of a few doubts here and there.)

If we never reach a point where I can safely be that confident either way, it'll remain open indefinitely. (And Manifold lends you your mana back after a few months, so this doesn't negatively impact you.)

"Come from a laboratory" includes both an accidental lab leak and an 

. It also counts if COVID was found in the wild, taken to a lab for study, and then escaped from that lab without any modification. It just needs to have actually been "in the lab" in a meaningful way. A lab worker who was out collecting samples and got contaminated in the wild doesn't count, but it does count if they got contaminated later from a sample that was supposed to be safely contained.

In the event of multiple progenitors, this market resolves YES only if the lab leak was plausibly responsible for the worldwide pandemic. It won't count if the pandemic primarily came from natural sources and then there was also a lab leak that only infected a few people.