Edit: The answer seems to have leaked, so this market has been closed while we wait to see if the leak is real and then what the fairest resolution is.
This question resolves to the TIME 2025 Person of The Year. It uses consolidated answers to avoid having to predict who the major party nominees will be, or the exact wording of any abstract/group answers.
If you would like to add a new candidate or consolidated answer to the market, submit them in a comment below. If a comment gets enough support, I'll open the market to submissions so that you can add it and you'll get the unique trader bonuses.
Note that all consolidated answers must be mutually exclusive, so no more specific or general versions of existing options. The goal is to cleanly divide the probabilistic landscape into non-overlapping categories.
If multiple options do end up being true, then those options will resolve to an even split of 100%.
1,000
3.00After consulting with the manifold discord, I am resolving the market to 12% Jensen, 12% Altman, 12% Elon, 12% Demis, and 51% Other. I believe this is most consistent with those individuals being 4 of the 8 listed on the Wikipedia list of TIME POTY winners and the resolution clause "If multiple options do end up being true, then those options will resolve to an even split of 100%".
The Artificial Intelligence option is for if AI itself won, regardless of if it were a specific model or a generic AI. TIME chose to give the credit to the humans behind the AI instead, so that option will resolve NO as it did on Polymarket and Kalshi. Maybe next year!
Thanks all for predicting, and apologies for the delay and messiness of the resolution. I don't know if I'll end up net profitable myself from this resolution, but if I am I'll put it all into subsidy for next year. And I'm very open to comments and suggestions on how the resolution criteria can be improved for the future.I think possibly the only really clean way to do it is to have individual, unlinked options like Kalshi. But I do like the challenge of trying to predict resolutions that have to sum to 100% and I hope you guys do too.
@Joshua the resolution of 12x4+51 adds up to 99 instead of 100. Not sure if I m missing something here but shouldn’t they add up to 100%?
@Mochi All the ones that say 12 are actually slightly higher than 12, like 12.22ish. The 51 is not exactly 51. It is rounded for display purposes.
@Eliza Looks like it was resolved like this:
Demis - 12.219720774567726
Elon - 12.219720774567726
Jensen - 12.219720774567726
Sam - 12.4253344489313
Other - 50.91550322736553
It adds to 100.
@Eliza I would give credit to AI too.
Wikipedia page isn't time magazine article.
Article mentioned AI in most. More than any of those CEOs.
Ceo of Nvidia is definitely not the architect for example.
Picture resembles the New York builders. Builders of AI are developers, AI tools, models and so on
@1bets it's too late now, it won't be changed
FWIW you should really pick your battles when it comes to disputing resolutions, I know it's fun to argue, but you can quickly step into the "disruptive noise" category and then your genuine disputes will end up ignored too. This is not directly related to your reasoning, but the timing - once it's decided, let it go!
@Gen unresolving happens oftenly
Bet here we need more transparency .. author tried to find balance.
But balance isn't equal to truth
@1bets there was a long discussion in discord, A market like this, that went through a full process where the creator thought about it, discussed it, and made a deliberate decision - is basically never getting unresolved
Things usually only get unresolved if the creator rushes something and new info comes out, or if the resolution was maliciously wrong
@Gen I genuinely have a kind of feeling that those Discord discussions were just to avoid discussing here and to justify a predetermined outcome (or slightly alter that) with upfront decisions to exclude AI option.
The evidence that sticks out to me is the highly confident bets made by JeremiahKellick right before the discussion moved to discord , and he was not present in there. On top of that, his writing style feels for me similar to the creator's. I may be wrong.
Again, I could be wrong, so don't take this as any kind of friendly investigation of any kind, just looking for clues to explain why things aren't logically adding up for me
Wow. So, the article straight up never even gives a definitive list of who they chose as POTY?
It's a badly written article regardless, but if they had just put one more person on the ugly ripoff cover I would have made a few hundred more mana.
@1bets why do you want 10% for ai, you didn’t bet it. You won mana betting on other. So you should be happy?
@NzJack0n 10% for each .
Ceos are not architects. Lunch on skyscraper is a photo of builders , those builders who built new New York.
AI models contribute to building AI models not less than CEOs.
AI actually at the cover, same as depiction of those CEO (pictured as builders).
The current resolution does not make sense.
Time magazine collaged CEOs as Builders of skyscrapers. But they are not.
@NzJack0n I certainly did. I bet on two things. I expected to win one of them. I did. But for some reason the runner of this did not give me the money I clearly deserved.
@1bets This seems incredibly petty. Time is obviously not denoting AI itself when it says "Architects of AI". The market creator engaged in a good-faith discussion with the community Discord to come to a fair resolution which, by all accounts, was a perfectly reasonable one.
@NBAP are you suggesting that Time magazine has a different definition of "any", "other", and "variation"? These words have a clear meaning in English. Time is an English magazine. I doubt you can find any authority that would not say "AI Architects" is a "variation" of the category AI. Your reason for not including it makes no sense. I was right when I picked it expecting these to pick a variation on AI, which they did.
@Hogan TIME absolutely knowingly elected to credit the humans behind AI instead of alluding to the personification of AI. They didn't choose "AI and it's architects" or similar, and the wording was 100% a conscious choice. I am happy with the resolution specifically because AI got 0% and I would have fiercely protested if it got so much as 1% let alone 10%.
@Hogan it’s not a variation on Ai though. It says ChatGPT or any other variation. This means a variation of a model. Eg. Gemini or Claude. For example, Hawaiian and Pepperoni are variations of Pizza. A Pizza Maker is not a variation of Pizza.
@Hogan Time magazine is certainly using standard definitions of those words, according to which "Architects of AI" is obviously not meant to denote a variation of AI.
@NzJack0n but picture matters, the illustrations of creatures similar to CEOs led to resolution to give those CEOs 12.5% each.
While the a4 list is a big depiction of AI
@dgga This has to do with your bias about the use of the term "AI". But we are not talking about AI we are talking about what was written on the thing we voted for. We DID NOT VOTE FOR AI TO WIN. We voted something that said "any other variation". Myself and others expected that to represent any other variation WHICH IT WAS. AI was where the money was invested this year and those investors were going to use their power to make sure it won. Which it did. That is why I picked this option and that is why I would be rewarded. It has nothing to do with you emotions about if AI is an entity or has a soul.
@NBAP Sure it does -- AI is a business term. Architects of AI are the people behind the business -- they are the humans that create it. It is the same thing when we are talking about person of the year and who won, in the context of this question.