Resolves yes if the US federal government makes it broadly illegal to share sexually explicit images generated by AI without the subject's consent, before the end of 2024.
I'll probably defer to this Polymarket of the same question for the resolution, unless it resolves in some silly way because of UMA. I'm not a lawyer and don't have a rigid definition of what kind of ban would count, but this will resolve based on the common sense spirit of the question.
I will not trade in this market.
See also /Joshua/will-the-us-federal-government-make-890586f6893f
1,000
3.00Seems too high but I'm afraid to bet against @MichaelWheatley. Putting in a small bet for my daily bonus
@WilliamGunn I've been looking for evidence that it's snuck in somewhere in the huge cromnibus funding bill, but I yet don't see any reporting to that effect.
@nonnihil Working hypothesis: The relevant trader is going through down-betting all "by 2025" / "In 2024" markets, and maybe happened to punch the wrong button on this one?
@nonnihil It must be very tempting for some congressional staffers to engage in a version of insider trading on these kinds of questions. What do you reckon the likelihood of that being the explanation over at Polymarket?
@nonnihil I think they just moved this to match Polymarket odds, since it resolves according to that.
@WilliamGunn The person who bid this up on Polymarket seems to be, if I'm reading things right, down over a million dollars across his portfolio. This argues against it being a congressional staffer, though someone who has that kinda money to lose could plausibly have access to insider info.
@WilliamGunn Further details and analysis from techdirt: https://www.techdirt.com/2024/12/19/take-it-down-act-has-best-of-intentions-worst-of-mechanisms/
It seems to be half-baked nonsense, so I'll pick up some YES of it for next year.
