🍩 Some kind of blood glucose monitoring

'blood':4 'glucos':5 'kind':2 'monitor':6

🧲 New magnetic mechanism for connecting bands

'band':6 'connect':5 'magnet':2 'mechan':3 'new':1

For WatchOS predictions see the many WWDC markets or 

Apple fall event dashboard coming soon...

iPhone

Apple Watch ⌚️

🍎 Apple

🖥️ Technology

🤖 AI

If debate doesn't happen, resolves No. Any variation of "GPT" counts, GPT-4, ChatGPT, etc.  Including moderators.

👴🏼 Joe Biden

👴 Trump

🇺🇸 2024 US Presidential Election

🇺🇸 US Politics

🗳️ Politics

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".

🤖 OpenAI

GPT-5 Speculation

ChatGPT

https://x.com/apples_jimmy/status/1787331421964804324

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

presidential debate

THE AMAZING DIGITAL CIRCUS - Ep 2: Candy Carrier Chaos! 

is shown as having 100 million views at this link by the end of May 2024. (

) Otherwise, resolve NO. Timing is Eastern Standard Time. I will check periodically to see if market should resolve YES, but please put screenshots in the comments for evidence if you'd like me to resolve as soon as possible. I may bet in this market.

🍿 Entertainment and Pop Culture

📺 Television & Film

YouTube

The Amazing Digital Circus

This market resolves YES if, before June 1st, RFK addresses the report and broadly confirms that he probably did have a brain parasite. The report does not claim that he certainly had a brain parasite, and so RFK also does not need to be certain for this resolution. A new quote from him saying he "probably" had a brain parasite would be sufficient for this market. Likewise, anything to the affect of "I'm not an expert, but that's what the doctors think is most likely" would be sufficient for a YES resolution.

On the other hand, if RFK says nothing before June 1st, or broadly denies that he likely had a brain parasite, then this market resolves NO. Saying something like "the dark spot could have been anything, the parasite theory was just one doctor's opinion and many other doctors had other opinions" would be sufficient for a NO resolution.

These exact criteria may be updated to better match the spirit of the market, suggestions are welcome in the comments.

🧪 Science

2023 is trending to be the hottest year on record.

🪸 Climate

Global Warming 

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

Literal brain worm story from the NYT here:

If search interest over the past 90 days reaches a new one-day high above the March 26th peak by the end of May 15th, this market resolves YES. Otherwise, resolves NO.

'beat':3 'citi':2 'dortmund':4 'manchest':1

Real Madrid beats Manchester City ⚽ (Leg 1) Apr-9

'-9':9 '1':7 'apr':8 'beat':3 'citi':5 'leg':6 'madrid':2 'manchest':4 'real':1

Atlético de Madrid beats Borussia Dortmund ⚽ (Leg 1) Apr-10

'-10':10 '1':8 'apr':9 'atlético':1 'beat':4 'borussia':5 'de':2 'dortmund':6 'leg':7 'madrid':3

'-10':7 '1':5 'apr':6 'barcelona':3 'beat':2 'leg':4 'psg':1

Arsenal beats Bayern Munich ⚽ (Leg 1) Apr-9

'-9':8 '1':6 'apr':7 'arsenal':1 'bayern':3 'beat':2 'leg':5 'munich':4

Manchester City beats Real Madrid ⚽ (Leg 2) Apr-17

'-17':9 '2':7 'apr':8 'beat':3 'citi':2 'leg':6 'madrid':5 'manchest':1 'real':4

 Borussia Dortmund beats Atlético de Madrid ⚽ (Leg 2) Apr-16

'-16':10 '2':8 'apr':9 'atlético':4 'beat':3 'borussia':1 'de':5 'dortmund':2 'leg':7 'madrid':6

'-16':7 '2':5 'apr':6 'barcelona':1 'beat':2 'leg':4 'psg':3

Bayern Munich beats Arsenal ⚽ (Leg 2) Apr-17

'-17':8 '2':6 'apr':7 'arsenal':4 'bayern':1 'beat':3 'leg':5 'munich':2

Real Madrid beats Manchester City ⚽ Aggregate

'aggreg':6 'beat':3 'citi':5 'madrid':2 'manchest':4 'real':1

Atlético de Madrid beats  Borussia Dortmund ⚽ Aggregate

'aggreg':7 'atlético':1 'beat':4 'borussia':5 'de':2 'dortmund':6 'madrid':3

'aggreg':4 'barcelona':3 'beat':2 'psg':1

Arsenal beats Bayern Munich ⚽ Aggregate

'aggreg':5 'arsenal':1 'bayern':3 'beat':2 'munich':4

Borussia Dortmund beats PSG ⚽ Aggregate

'aggreg':5 'beat':3 'borussia':1 'dortmund':2 'psg':4

Bayern Munich beats Real Madrid ⚽ Aggregate

'aggreg':6 'bayern':1 'beat':3 'madrid':5 'munich':2 'real':4

FINAL 🚧 Borussia Dortmund beats Bayern Munich/Real Madrid

'bayern':5 'beat':4 'borussia':2 'dortmund':3 'final':1 'madrid':7 'munich/real':6

'9':6 'april':5 'card':4 'get':2 'match':7 'player':1 'red':3

'4.5':2 '9':6 'april':5 'goal':3 'match':7 'score':4

Goal scored in stoppage time (April 9 matches)

'9':7 'april':6 'goal':1 'match':8 'score':2 'stoppag':4 'time':5

Both matches end in a draw (April 9 matches)

'9':8 'april':7 'draw':6 'end':3 'match':2,9

'6.5':2 '9':6 'april':5 'goal':3 'match':7 'score':4

'9':6 '9.5':2 'april':5 'goal':3 'match':7 'score':4

'1':3 '9':6 'april':5 'goal':4 'musiala':1 'score':2

'1':3 '9':6 'april':5 'goal':4 'haaland':1 'score':2

'11.5':2 '9':6 'april':5 'goal':3 'match':7 'score':4

'10':6 'april':5 'card':4 'get':2 'match':7 'player':1 'red':3

Goal scored in stoppage time (April 10 matches)

'10':7 'april':6 'goal':1 'match':8 'score':2 'stoppag':4 'time':5

Both matches end in a draw (April 10 matches)

'10':8 'april':7 'draw':6 'end':3 'match':2,9

'10':6 '6.5':2 'april':5 'goal':3 'match':7 'score':4

'10':6 '4.5':2 'april':5 'goal':3 'match':7 'score':4

'1':3 '10':6 'april':5 'goal':4 'mbapp':1 'score':2

'1':3 '10':6 'april':5 'goal':4 'lewandowski':1 'score':2

'1':3 '10':6 'april':5 'goal':4 'morata':1 'score':2

'1':3 '10':6 'april':5 'goal':4 'griezmann':1 'score':2

'1':3 '10':6 'april':5 'goal':4 'sancho':1 'score':2

'1':3 '10':6 'april':5 'füllkrug':1 'goal':4 'score':2

'1':3 '10':6 'april':5 'dembélé':1 'goal':4 'score':2

'1':3 '10':6 'april':5 'goal':4 'pedri':1 'score':2

Player scores a hat trick (April 10 matches)

'10':7 'april':6 'hat':4 'match':8 'player':1 'score':2 'trick':5

'16':6 '4.5':2 'april':5 'goal':3 'match':7 'score':4

'16':6 '6.5':2 'april':5 'goal':3 'match':7 'score':4

'16':6 '9.5':2 'april':5 'goal':3 'match':7 'score':4

'16':6 'april':5 'card':4 'get':2 'match':7 'player':1 'red':3

Goal scored in stoppage time (April 16 matches)

'16':7 'april':6 'goal':1 'match':8 'score':2 'stoppag':4 'time':5

Both matches end in a draw (April 16 matches)

'16':8 'april':7 'draw':6 'end':3 'match':2,9

A match goes into extra time (April 16 matches)

'16':8 'april':7 'extra':5 'goe':3 'match':2,9 'time':6

Over 8.5 yellow cards given to players (April 16 matches)

'16':9 '8.5':2 'april':8 'card':4 'given':5 'match':10 'player':7 'yellow':3

Player scores a hat trick (April 16 matches)

'16':7 'april':6 'hat':4 'match':8 'player':1 'score':2 'trick':5

'1':3 '16':6 'april':5 'goal':4 'mbapp':1 'score':2

'1':3 '16':6 'april':5 'goal':4 'lewandowski':1 'score':2

'1':3 '16':6 'april':5 'goal':4 'morata':1 'score':2

'1':3 '16':6 'april':5 'goal':4 'griezmann':1 'score':2

'1':3 '16':6 'april':5 'goal':4 'sancho':1 'score':2

'1':3 '16':6 'april':5 'füllkrug':1 'goal':4 'score':2

'1':3 '16':6 'april':5 'goal':4 'pedri':1 'score':2

'1':3 '16':6 'april':5 'dembélé':1 'goal':4 'score':2

'1':3 '16':6 'april':5 'goal':4 'raphinha':1 'score':2

Over 3.5 goals in first half (April 16 matches)

'16':8 '3.5':2 'april':7 'first':5 'goal':3 'half':6 'match':9

'16':6 '2':3 'april':5 'goal':4 'raphinha':1 'score':2

Penalty kick is missed (April 16 matches - regular time only)

'16':6 'april':5 'kick':2 'match':7 'miss':4 'penalti':1 'regular':8 'time':9

'16':6 'april':5 'goal':2 'match':7 'score':4

2+ red cards are given (April 16 matches)

'16':7 '2':1 'april':6 'card':3 'given':5 'match':8 'red':2

'16':6 '2':3 'april':5 'dembélé':1 'goal':4 'score':2

Over 3.5 goals scored in 2nd half (April 16 matches - regular time only)

'16':9 '2nd':6 '3.5':2 'april':8 'goal':3 'half':7 'match':10 'regular':11 'score':4 'time':12

'16':6 '2':3 'april':5 'goal':4 'mbapp':1 'score':2

3+ red cards are given (April 16 matches)

'16':7 '3':1 'april':6 'card':3 'given':5 'match':8 'red':2

4+ red cards are given (April 16 matches)

'16':7 '4':1 'april':6 'card':3 'given':5 'match':8 'red':2

'16':6 '2':3 'april':5 'füllkrug':1 'goal':4 'score':2

Over 11.5 goals scored (April 16 matches)

'11.5':2 '16':6 'april':5 'goal':3 'match':7 'score':4

'17':6 '4.5':2 'april':5 'goal':3 'match':7 'score':4

'17':6 '6.5':2 'april':5 'goal':3 'match':7 'score':4

'17':6 '9.5':2 'april':5 'goal':3 'match':7 'score':4

Over 11.5 goals scored (April 17 matches)

'11.5':2 '17':6 'april':5 'goal':3 'match':7 'score':4

Over 3.5 goals in first half (April 17 matches)

'17':8 '3.5':2 'april':7 'first':5 'goal':3 'half':6 'match':9

Over 3.5 goals in second half (April 17 matches - reg time)

'17':8 '3.5':2 'april':7 'goal':3 'half':6 'match':9 'reg':10 'second':5 'time':11

Player scores a hat trick (April 17 matches)

'17':7 'april':6 'hat':4 'match':8 'player':1 'score':2 'trick':5

Goal scored in stoppage time (April 17 matches)

'17':7 'april':6 'goal':1 'match':8 'score':2 'stoppag':4 'time':5

A match goes into extra time (April 17 matches)

'17':8 'april':7 'extra':5 'goe':3 'match':2,9 'time':6

Over 7.5 yellow cards given to players (April 17 matches)

'17':9 '7.5':2 'april':8 'card':4 'given':5 'match':10 'player':7 'yellow':3

'17':6 'april':5 'card':4 'get':2 'match':7 'player':1 'red':3

'1':3 '17':6 'april':5 'goal':4 'haaland':1 'score':2

'1':3 '17':6 'april':5 'goal':4 'musiala':1 'score':2

'1':4 '17':7 'april':6 'goal':5 'harri':1 'kane':2 'score':3

Penalty kick is missed (April 17 matches - regular time only)

'17':6 'april':5 'kick':2 'match':7 'miss':4 'penalti':1 'regular':8 'time':9

Borussia Dortmund beats PSG ⚽ (Leg 1) May-1

'-1':8 '1':6 'beat':3 'borussia':1 'dortmund':2 'leg':5 'may':7 'psg':4

 PSG beats Borussia Dortmund ⚽ (Leg 2) May-7

'-7':8 '2':6 'beat':2 'borussia':3 'dortmund':4 'leg':5 'may':7 'psg':1