PolymarketAgreed, glad these both resolved with common sense
Agreed, glad these both resolved with common sense
General Obligation参与话题 3消息总数 34
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 34 条，显示第 1-34 条As far as the GPT market goes, the voice model is technically a GPT model as well. But thankfully, those rules specify that the model must be added to Text Arena in order to qualify.
As far as the GPT market goes, the voice model is technically a GPT model as well. But thankfully, those rules specify that the model must be added to Text Arena in order to qualify.
lol 50K share order @ .03c N now up on the OpenAI next model market
lol 50K share order @ .03c N now up on the OpenAI next model market
Correct
Correct
lol one would think, but this is PM.
lol one would think, but this is PM.
Before what market exactly? The 1500 strike was created on May 1st, 4 days before instant was released. Check it on PM
Before what market exactly? The 1500 strike was created on May 1st, 4 days before instant was released. Check it on PM
No, the strikes were there before 5.5 instant. Look at the 1500 strike - that was created May 1st @ 6:09 PM EST. May 5th - instant released May 8th - premiered on Arena https://x.com/arena/status/2052876951329919383?s=20
No, the strikes were there before 5.5 instant. Look at the 1500 strike - that was created May 1st @ 6:09 PM EST. May 5th - instant released May 8th - premiered on Arena https://x.com/arena/status/2052876951329919383?s=20
There seems to be no consistency whatsoever to the resolution criteria
There seems to be no consistency whatsoever to the resolution criteria
It had something to do with 5.5 instant, but the resolution history is a complete mess. 5.5 instant was released on May 5th and didn’t debut on Arena until May 8th. Yet somehow, the higher strikes (1480, 1500, 1520) all resolved to N on May 7th, one day *before* the model appeared on Arena
It had something to do with 5.5 instant, but the resolution history is a complete mess. 5.5 instant was released on May 5th and didn’t debut on Arena until May 8th. Yet somehow, the higher strikes (1480, 1500, 1520) all resolved to N on May 7th, one day *before* the model appeared on Arena
Hmm. Why did higher brackets resolve to N on May 7?
Hmm. Why did higher brackets resolve to N on May 7?
If they do clarify in favor of a “text” model for that market, they should scrap it going forward. And rename the GPT market to “next **text** model” instead of GPT
If they do clarify in favor of a “text” model for that market, they should scrap it going forward. And rename the GPT market to “next **text** model” instead of GPT
lol not a knock against you here, i know exactly what you’re referring to. But going so far to specify “GPT” models doesn’t seem any clearer, nor anymore in the “spirit”’of the rules to me. I think a clarification would go a long way.
lol not a knock against you here, i know exactly what you’re referring to. But going so far to specify “GPT” models doesn’t seem any clearer, nor anymore in the “spirit”’of the rules to me. I think a clarification would go a long way.
Is it clear though? Why, then, is there a *separate* market exclusively for **GPT** models?
Is it clear though? Why, then, is there a *separate* market exclusively for **GPT** models?
https://polymarket.com/event/next-openai-model-arena-debut-685 OpenAI’s “next” model was a voice model they released on July 8th, a day before GPT 5.6 debuted. This market looks at ANY public model by OpenAI. Unlike its sister market, this one doesn’t specify that it has to be a GPT model on the Arena leaderboard. Just the next “next OpenAI model.” Which means…this resolve to N in 6 days, since Arena doesn’t do voice models. Right? The “next GPT model” market is a bit different. That market looks specifically at the next GPT model that makes it to the Arena leaderboard. Which should be 5.6. But based on the rules, the next general OpenAI model released (after market creation) was their realtime, bidirectional model on July 8.
https://polymarket.com/event/next-openai-model-arena-debut-685 OpenAI’s “next” model was a voice model they released on July 8th, a day before GPT 5.6 debuted. This market looks at ANY public model by OpenAI. Unlike its sister market, this one doesn’t specify that it has to be a GPT model on the Arena leaderboard. Just the next “next OpenAI model.” Which means…this resolve to N in 6 days, since Arena doesn’t do voice models. Right? The “next GPT model” market is a bit different. That market looks specifically at the next GPT model that makes it to the Arena leaderboard. Which should be 5.6. But based on the rules, the next general OpenAI model released (after market creation) was their realtime, bidirectional model on July 8.
Invalidate me please
Invalidate me please
Status quo. As is. Last known status. In this case…0 enrichment. Remember, the nuclear detail was a restrictive pledge from the Iranians. So we look at it from their side. In that same clause, was a restrictive pledge from the US about keeping sanctions and troops status as is.
Status quo. As is. Last known status. In this case…0 enrichment. Remember, the nuclear detail was a restrictive pledge from the Iranians. So we look at it from their side. In that same clause, was a restrictive pledge from the US about keeping sanctions and troops status as is.
I agree with this too - but one step at a time. Need to finalize the case for Y on End Enrichment market
I agree with this too - but one step at a time. Need to finalize the case for Y on End Enrichment market
I’m open to changing my opinion. I’m not married to this position. But the Y case is very convincing to me, given the last known status (“status quo”) on active enrichment (which is a fat ZERO), as claimed by the Iranians, who are the relevant party here.
I’m open to changing my opinion. I’m not married to this position. But the Y case is very convincing to me, given the last known status (“status quo”) on active enrichment (which is a fat ZERO), as claimed by the Iranians, who are the relevant party here.
Again, i challenge all of you - even those bashing me for “old articles - to find me a more recent source on active Iranian enrichment status. It’s 0.
Again, i challenge all of you - even those bashing me for “old articles - to find me a more recent source on active Iranian enrichment status. It’s 0.
The agreement is definitive, the action is conditional. Resolve it to Y
The agreement is definitive, the action is conditional. Resolve it to Y
So status quo is: Iran has the right to continued enrichment, but are not enriching because they don’t have the means?
So status quo is: Iran has the right to continued enrichment, but are not enriching because they don’t have the means?
Yeah 0 enrichment, but right to continued enrichment. Both markets resolve Y
Yeah 0 enrichment, but right to continued enrichment. Both markets resolve Y
9 — Pending the final deal, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree to maintain the status quo. The Islamic Republic of Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program, and the United States of America will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region. That’s a permissive concession by the US, allowing the *right* to enrich IMO
9 — Pending the final deal, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree to maintain the status quo. The Islamic Republic of Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program, and the United States of America will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region. That’s a permissive concession by the US, allowing the *right* to enrich IMO
Well JCPOA was torn up by both US and Iran…so status quo from Iran’s perspective - is that they can enrich, if they want. The relevant clause in the MOU was about easing restrictions on Iran, included among the removal of many sanctions on its nuclear program. In that light, that’s a pro-Iranian concession by the US to permit enrichment
Well JCPOA was torn up by both US and Iran…so status quo from Iran’s perspective - is that they can enrich, if they want. The relevant clause in the MOU was about easing restrictions on Iran, included among the removal of many sanctions on its nuclear program. In that light, that’s a pro-Iranian concession by the US to permit enrichment
<@1414560780829065246> my understanding is that the MOU affirmed Iran’s right to continued enrich for now. But they will choose not to
<@1414560780829065246> my understanding is that the MOU affirmed Iran’s right to continued enrich for now. But they will choose not to
I think there’s an argument for it personally
I think there’s an argument for it personally
“Status quo on nuclear program”
“Status quo on nuclear program”
https://polymarket.com/event/iran-agrees-to-end-enrichment-of-uranium-by-june-30 https://polymarket.com/event/what-iranian-demands-will-trump-agree-to-by-june-30 it’s not possible for BOTH of these to resolve N right? Like one of these has to be Y? Either there’s enrichment or there’s not enrichment
https://polymarket.com/event/iran-agrees-to-end-enrichment-of-uranium-by-june-30 https://polymarket.com/event/what-iranian-demands-will-trump-agree-to-by-june-30 it’s not possible for BOTH of these to resolve N right? Like one of these has to be Y? Either there’s enrichment or there’s not enrichment
But can you come back to my engine analogy? Did we agree to fix my engine? Did we agree that I’ll leave a review?
But can you come back to my engine analogy? Did we agree to fix my engine? Did we agree that I’ll leave a review?
lol you’re misreading Trump. Of course he’s given it thought. He just says that whenever doesn’t wanna talk about something
lol you’re misreading Trump. Of course he’s given it thought. He just says that whenever doesn’t wanna talk about something
how’s my analogy wrong?
how’s my analogy wrong?
“How long will it take to get my engine fixed? Good question, a little while” Same idea, still agreement
“How long will it take to get my engine fixed? Good question, a little while” Same idea, still agreement
The engine in my car is shot. I come to you to get it fixed. We have a deal that says “1. You fix this. 2. i pay you. 3. I leave a nice review on your website” Contingency is built-in to our agreement by default. We agree to terms with the understanding that it will happen.
The engine in my car is shot. I come to you to get it fixed. We have a deal that says “1. You fix this. 2. i pay you. 3. I leave a nice review on your website” Contingency is built-in to our agreement by default. We agree to terms with the understanding that it will happen.
all agreements are contingent
all agreements are contingent