This will resolve to YES if a peer-reviewed study is published before 12/31/2030 that claims a conversation has occured between a human entity and an animal.

Peer review studies have claimed a lot of false statements before.

Patterson has published peers reviewed papers about communicating with a gorilla well before AI hype.

https://www.earth.com/news/scientists-have-20-minute-conversation-with-a-humpback-whale-named-twain/

https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a35kp/scientists-have-reported-a-breakthrough-in-understanding-whale-language?utm_source=reddit.com getting close

https://manifold.markets/levifinkelstein/will-i-have-a-conversation-with-a-w

@PatrikCihal unlike that market, this one specifies a different species, not the tongue-in-cheek definition of a whale as a big-money trader. This doesn't resolve.

@JacobShapiro ohhhhh that explains a lot

For the purposes of this prediction, a conversation will be defined if both parties communicate at least one simple phrase or idea that the other party seemingly understands and responds to appropriately.

have you ever heard of a parrot

@April like seriously i think explaining exactly why parrots don't count is absolutely essential to having a reasonable resolution standard here

@April That's a good point. And as I've written it, I think you're probably right.

The spirit of what I was trying to get at was communication in the animal's native language. The key component is using AI to understand and reproduce something totally alien, not on the capability of the animal, really.

I'm no expert in this field, frankly, so I'm willing to take other opinions into account and then edit based on a consensus here.