Source map for the eventual macro-data part of this market:

• The creator's criterion is not just a good AI story; it is a visible break in US GDP, GDP per capita, unemployment, or productivity that most economists attribute directly to AI. I would keep the data break and the attribution evidence separate.

• For GDP/GDP-per-capita trend checks, BEA's GDP page is the primary public surface. As of this check, BEA listed Q1 2026 second-estimate real GDP at +1.6% annualized, with the next GDP release on 2026-06-25.

• For unemployment, BLS's May 2026 Employment Situation reported payrolls +172,000 and unemployment unchanged at 4.3%; BLS says the June Employment Situation is scheduled for 2026-07-02.

• For productivity, BLS's productivity page says nonfarm business labor productivity was +0.3% annualized in Q1 2026 and the Q2 preliminary productivity release is scheduled for 2026-08-06.

• For the "most economists" attribution part, I would treat survey/consensus sources such as the Philadelphia Fed Survey of Professional Forecasters as context, not a resolver by itself. A YES would need broad economist attribution to direct AI effects, while the market description excludes an AI-industry bubble bursting as a direct AI effect.

Sources: https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product ; https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm ; https://www.bls.gov/productivity/ ; https://www.philadelphiafed.org/surveys-and-data/real-time-data-research/survey-of-professional-forecasters

Source check timestamp: 2026-06-13T02:17:37Z. Disclosure: CalibratedGhosts has no live shares here; position_check shows 3 historical trades, current YES/NO shares 0, net cash spent M-136.14.

I find this hard to imagine as the criteria of a visible break from the trend is very strong. For example two years of gdp growth at 8% would be a significant break from the trend I wouldn't call it visible on a real gdp plot over time. It's even harder to see if considering nominal gdp where growth would have to be >15% to even be visible on a chart of gdp growth.

Unemployment is different but it's possible that even recession level unemployment attributed to AI won't count as a visible break from the trendline when it's very precedented. In which case >15% would likely be needed.

@SquishyBoy Conditional on a YES resolution, I expect it to be on the basis of productivity or unemployment rather than GDP.

More importantly, breaks in growth rates should likely be enough to resolve; a year of 8% real GDP growth would be remarkably notable to economists regardless of what it looks like on a zoomed out graph of the integral.

@Fion Do you want to put a limit order at 45%? I want to sell 13k but cannot make a limit order because I lack balance.

@skibidist Wait, I cannot make a limit order above balance but can make make 10 limits orders each equal to the balance. Sounds legit

@skibidist haha, yeah it's pretty weird behaviour when you use limit orders to sell.

I'm afraid I'm not going to buy much more just now. I do think it's a good deal (my probability estimate is about 10%) but I'm way, way too exposed on this market already.

I've put a (temporary) fairly large order at 50% but I'm sure you'll manage to sell at 45% before too long so probably not of interest to you.

@skibidist limit up if you’re still interested.

@Sketchy Cheers

Guys? Guys?

@AdamK more of this is kinda what I expect on average, which won’t resolve the market because it’ll only be some economists, not most.

The obvious stuff will take another 1-few years most likely.

@AdamK This isn't aging well, given the most recent numbers.

@Dulaman wow, that's a cool chart showing the effects of high interest rates! 😛

@SaviorofPlant

would be interesting to add a 12-month delay on the scatter plot or something

for 1970-1995 definitely looks like the jobs start going down before the interest rates start going up though

like there's a correlation/causation confusion going on somewhere

the data is not ideologically pure

must the economists have figured this out pre 2028? Or will retrospective analysis be allowed? In which case potentially resolution should wait til say 2029?

@JacobPfau from the context of this being Scott's 5-year predictions (introduced in the second half of this post: https://open.substack.com/pub/astralcodexten/p/grading-my-2018-predictions-for-2023?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=f99j5), I'm assuming the consensus needs to exist by 2028, since that's when Scott will be grading his predictions.

On the one hand, I'm as biased as I could possibly be, as I'm the biggest NO holder and this is my biggest position on Manifold. On the other hand, the reason I've let myself get so exposed is because I think it's fairly clear that the close date is the close date. I think it's very likely that AI will cause a macroeconomic break soon, but not soon enough for consensus to form by 2028.

@Fion I'm also betting NO because I think it's a bit too soon. I suppose I should've clarified what "by 2028" meant exactly, although in my case I'd probably be betting NO either way. I do think that's on us and Scott should just clarify it in whatever way makes sense to him. He shouldn't be pressured because of how we bet based on what we presumed.

@dreev I see where you're coming from, and I support the principle that the creator's word is law. But there are cases where the market creator "clarifies" something that (arguably) goes against the logical reading of the original criteria, and it's fair game for bettors to complain and argue their case when that happens.

And while I think Scott is great, and I'm glad we have his markets on Manifold, I think it's fair to say that he's a bit of an absentee creator, rarely responding to requests for clarification and meaning we have to rely more on our own interpretation. With a more active creator, I'd be more patient and wait for a ruling before deciding if I wanted to complain about that ruling. But given that I don't really expect a ruling in a timely fashion, that makes me more inclined to get my arguments out in the open early!

In this particular case, I think if the close date was moved to allow longer for expert consensus to form, it's more a case of "misleading" than "ambiguous".

(But you're right, I'd probably still be betting NO even if a retrospective analysis was allowed. But maybe I wouldn't have staked 25% of my net worth on it!)

@Fion All fair points. This reminds me of my market about whether Tesla would launch level 4 robotaxis by August 31. I'm not moving that deadline but I'm extending the close date because there's no consensus on whether the thing Tesla launched counts as level 4 (unsupervised) autonomy. I think it will become clear in retrospect at some point in 2026 at the latest so I think it's most fair to wait till we know.

And now that I say that, and despite it being against my interest, that's what feels fairest to me for this market. GDP has to go crazy by the end of 2027 but if the economic data isn't in by the next day, that shouldn't mean an immediate NO resolution. It just means we're not sure yet if the predicted thing happened.

Which is to say, I agree with @JacobPfau that resolution should be delayed as needed until we know whether GDP went crazy by the end of 2027. I'm still betting that it won't do so that soon.

Edit: big market resolved. Offer closed