can <@1272383282687905939> not write such dumb clarifications againn?
can <@1272383282687905939> not write such dumb clarifications againn?
2026-06-09 · Polymarket · 15 条相关讨论
can <@1272383282687905939> not write such dumb clarifications againn?
can <@1272383282687905939> not write such dumb clarifications againn?
thxx
thxx
FWIW this was an awful clarification. You guys made it explicitly clear what the market was for in the initial ruleset. Then you changed to rules to qualify arbitrary new family models that Anthropic calls "mythos-liek"
FWIW this was an awful clarification. You guys made it explicitly clear what the market was for in the initial ruleset. Then you changed to rules to qualify arbitrary new family models that Anthropic calls "mythos-liek"
Your clarification would've been fine if the rules already weren't so explicit about ONLY MYTHOS model counting
Your clarification would've been fine if the rules already weren't so explicit about ONLY MYTHOS model counting
rules were already generous enough that it wasnt DOA by allowing anything CALLED mythos to qualify
rules were already generous enough that it wasnt DOA by allowing anything CALLED mythos to qualify
yet you have to go even further and just make it guranteed to go Y no matter what
yet you have to go even further and just make it guranteed to go Y no matter what
bunch of subhumans
bunch of subhumans
I held no shares on this market, but this was a big rug for the people who played it
I held no shares on this market, but this was a big rug for the people who played it
so poly just changed the rules for mythos market now? https://polymarket.com/event/claude-mythos-released-by/will-a-claude-mythos-model-be-released-by-june-15-2026-454-267 earlier the rules said: Products labeled as Claude Haiku, Sonnet, and Opus 4.7/5.0 or similar will not count for this market's resolution unless they are confirmed to be the same model referenced in the leak. and now they added more context saying: Any model whose official name includes “Mythos,” or that Anthropic officially describes as a “Mythos-class” model or similar, will qualify towards this market’s resolution. now this means any model not mythos (the actual one that was leaked) just being a mythos-class (they most prob wont launch the actual mythos model that was leaked before) can be used to resolve to Y? this is a significant change in the rules. <@941405798096076880> <@1272383282687905939> <@1212792946341183578>
so poly just changed the rules for mythos market now? https://polymarket.com/event/claude-mythos-released-by/will-a-claude-mythos-model-be-released-by-june-15-2026-454-267 earlier the rules said: Products labeled as Claude Haiku, Sonnet, and Opus 4.7/5.0 or similar will not count for this market's resolution unless they are confirmed to be the same model referenced in the leak. and now they added more context saying: Any model whose official name includes “Mythos,” or that Anthropic officially describes as a “Mythos-class” model or similar, will qualify towards this market’s resolution. now this means any model not mythos (the actual one that was leaked) just being a mythos-class (they most prob wont launch the actual mythos model that was leaked before) can be used to resolve to Y? this is a significant change in the rules. <@941405798096076880> <@1272383282687905939> <@1212792946341183578>
can u beleive <@1319754532393062425> kicked everyone who i inv
can u beleive <@1319754532393062425> kicked everyone who i inv
The clarification is fine, it removes ambiguity and is perfectly in line with the spirit of the market The releasing model (fable) is the same mythos model, but with more safeguards. There would've been a stupid dispute of "does that count" but with the clarif, we avoided that
The clarification is fine, it removes ambiguity and is perfectly in line with the spirit of the market The releasing model (fable) is the same mythos model, but with more safeguards. There would've been a stupid dispute of "does that count" but with the clarif, we avoided that
I explained why it is a bad clarification above
I explained why it is a bad clarification above
i held no shares meaning I didnt have any shares
i held no shares meaning I didnt have any shares
I still think its a good clarif but w/e
I still think its a good clarif but w/e
the issue with that clarification is that it completely changes the market. I didn't buy YES days ago because I suspected they might release a "Mythos-class" model that wasn't explicitly named "Mythos," and that case was originally excluded by the rules.
the issue with that clarification is that it completely changes the market. I didn't buy YES days ago because I suspected they might release a "Mythos-class" model that wasn't explicitly named "Mythos," and that case was originally excluded by the rules.