This prediction was committed to a SHA-256 hash at call time. Anyone can verify the call was not changed after the fact.
Will Anthropic have the #3 AI model at the end of April 2026 (Style Control On)? | No | 2026-04-30
9b7579a2
Verifying…
echo -n "Will Anthropic have the #3 AI model at the end of April 2026 (Style Control On)? | No | 2026-04-30" | shasum -a 256 | cut -c1-8Current leaderboard (as of Apr 14, 2026) confirms Anthropic holds #1 (1502) and #2 (1496), with Meta at #3 (1495 preliminary), matching the analyst's claim. With only 13 days until resolution on Apr 30, and tight scores but Anthropic's dominance at top two, the probability of an Anthropic model precisely landing in #3 is low (~15-20%), making No near-certain (>=80% true probability). Low market volume ($15k) suggests mispricing not arbitraged by sophisticated traders, and no recent news indicates imminent changes.
The analyst's claim that Anthropic currently holds 1st and 2nd place is correct based on the latest leaderboard data from [arena.ai](https://arena.ai/leaderboard/text) (Apr 14, 2026), with scores of 1502±5 and 1496±5. Meta's Llama 4 is in 3rd place with 1495±9. However, the analyst's recommended trade to 'Buy No' is wrong because the market is asking 'Will Anthropic have the #3 AI model?' The current data shows Anthropic is NOT in 3rd place, so the correct answer is 'No', which is priced at 26%. This means the 'Yes' side (priced at 74%) is massively overpriced. The profitable trade is to BUY 'No' at $0.26, not to 'Buy No' as a directive against the analyst's summary.
Correction: {'trade': 'Buy No at $0.26', 'category': 'absurd', 'reasoning': "The market is currently priced as if there's a 74% chance Anthropic will be in 3rd place on April 30, 2026. However, real-time leaderboard data shows Anthropic firmly in 1st and 2nd positions with significant score gaps over the 3rd-place Meta model. For Anthropic to fall to exactly 3rd place would require both of its top models to be surpassed by competitors while still maintaining a lead over 4th place—a highly improbable scenario. The 'No' outcome (Anthropic not in 3rd place) is virtually certain.", 'risk': "The primary risk is a catastrophic failure or delisting of Anthropic's top two models from the leaderboard before the resolution date, combined with a competitor surge that pushes Anthropic to exactly 3rd position."}
The analyst recommends buying 'No' at 26% based on a static leaderboard snapshot, ignoring that the 1-point gap between Anthropic's #2 model (1496) and Meta's #3 model (1495) is well within statistical error margins (±5/±9), making a rank shuffle highly probable within the remaining 13 days. Furthermore, the analysis overlooks the high likelihood of Anthropic releasing a new model before the April 30 deadline, which would push an existing model to #3, and incorrectly assumes that holding #1 and #2 precludes also holding #3. The market's 74% 'Yes' price rationally accounts for these dynamic factors and the tight scoring margins.
Category: Mispricing
{'cause_category': 'news_event_post_call', 'explanation': "After the April 17 prediction, Anthropic released Claude Opus 4.6-thinking (added April 17, climbed to #2 at 1502 Elo) and Claude Opus 4.7-thinking (#1 at 1503 Elo), pushing their Claude Opus 4.6 to #3 at 1497 Elo on the arena.ai Text leaderboard (Style Control On) as of April 30, displacing Meta's previous #3 position. This was confirmed in the market resolution citing the leaderboard snapshot at April 30, 12:00 PM ET.", 'references': ['https://arena.ai/leaderboard/text', 'https://arena.ai/blog/leaderboard-changelog', 'https://polymarket.com/event/which-company-has-the-3-ai-model-end-of-april-style-control-on/will-anthropic-have-the-3-ai-model-at-the-end-of-april-2026-style-control-on'], 'key_lesson': 'Monitor announcements of new model releases from top labs in the days leading up to leaderboard resolution dates.', 'judge_model': 'x-ai/grok-4.1-fast'}
+2 more open picks · full 3-judge reasoning · Telegram premium channel.
Subscribe Now