This market will resolve to ‘Yes’ if, by December 31, 2024, there is verified evidence indicating that Artificial Intelligence (AI) has significantly influenced the outcome of any political election held during the year 2024. The evidence must satisfy the following criteria:
1. Credible Reports or Studies: The influence of AI must be documented in credible reports, studies, or analyses from reputable sources such as major research institutions, independent political analysis firms, or recognized media outlets. The reports should detail the methods and extent of AI’s influence on election outcomes.
2. Confirmation by Election Authorities or Independent Observers: The findings in these reports or studies must be confirmed or acknowledged by official election authorities or recognized independent election observation organizations. This confirmation should state that AI had a significant impact on the voting behavior, election processes, or final results.
3. Scope of Influence: The AI’s influence should be significant enough to have altered the outcome of the election. This could include, but is not limited to, manipulation of voter data, targeted misinformation campaigns, or automated social media operations that demonstrably shifted public opinion or voting patterns.
The market will resolve to ‘No’ if by the end of 2024, no such evidence is presented or if the evidence presented does not meet the above criteria. This includes situations where AI’s role in elections is minor, inconclusive, or not acknowledged by credible authorities.
Note: The market will resolve to ‘Yes’ if the criteria are met at any time up to and including December 31, 2024.
1,000
3.00The Constitutional Court of Romania, similar to the US Supreme Court, recently cancelled the Presidential elections. Artificial Intelligence is mentioned six times in the official motivation of the decision. Translating for example number 15:
At the same time, equality of opportunity must also be assessed through the prism of the electoral behavior of competitors, regarding the use of social networks, new technologies, artificial intelligence systems and the financing of the electoral campaign.
Links for reference:
Another issue is that election authorities and observers don't generally comment on how voters are influenced. Their responsibility is that the votes are counted accurately, to prevent voter fraud, and ensure everyone eligible who wants to vote can. I don't think election authorities are going to comment on the decision-making process of voters even if it includes influence from AI.
@B That very much depend on which country you are looking at. In Scandinavia these analyses are extensive.
@HakanKarlsson Can you give an example? I think you misunderstood me. I looked at the Swedish Election Authority website, and it looks like it is in line with what I said and does not have analysis about voters' motivations.
It has information about how the 2022 election went, including this report on voters' experience of the voting process itself https://www.val.se/servicelankar/servicelankar/press/nyheter--pressmeddelanden/pressmeddelanden/2023-09-22-hogt-och-oforandrat-fortroende-for-valgenomforandet-i-sverige-efter-2022-ars-val.html
That's quite different from an analysis of the particular reasons people voted for one party or another, and whether AI had anything to do in persuading people. I think such analyses are inherently somewhat political, and personally, I would be worried about impartiality if an electoral authority took positions on the reasons one or the other party won.
@B Ok, One example … but this gets very swede-centric 😊 I do not want to interfere too much but I believe your concerns are all valid. This however, is one reason I formulated this market in this way. Personally I believe, without a doubt, that AI will influence election results … but how long will it take us to have the evidence for it?https://www.gu.se/valforskningsprogrammet/undersokningar/valundersokningar
@HakanKarlsson OK I see that's interesting! I was concerned about your point (2); but I was wrong i think; this doesn't look like an "election authority" but I would consider them an "independent observer"