Which Sophia has considered extending to wait for an internal investigation to leak.
I think it is unlikely we will learn anything which would change how the market should resolve in the next six months, whether from this potential leak or from anything else.
If we do learn something that I think would have significantly changed how the market should resolution, this market will resolve yes.
I will not trade here.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ284 | |
| 2 | Ṁ117 | |
| 3 | Ṁ114 | |
| 4 | Ṁ17 | |
| 5 | Ṁ9 |
Looking at the resolutions, there are several that I think might be flipped by Helen Toner's interview:
Held equity after all
Sam didn't inform the board that he owned the OpenAI Startup Fund, even though he constantly was claiming to be an independent board member with no financial interest in the company.
Sam hasn’t been honest about technical stuff that was going on at OpenAI
On multiple occasions, he gave us inaccurate information about the small number of formal safety processes that the company did have in place, meaning that it was basically impossible for the board to know how well those safety processes were working or what might need to change.
Sam tried to oust other board member(s)
Sam tried to compromise the independence of the independent board members by sending an email to staff “reprimanding” Helen Toner https://archive.ph/snLmn
While she does say "we were already talking pretty seriously about whether we needed to fire him" when that happened, she still cites it as something that "really damaged our ability to trust him".
Approving capabilities projects without informing safety team
Withholding Specific AI Project Developments or Outcomes from the Board
Consistently making business decisions without Board knowledge
I can't share all the examples, but to give a sense of the thing that I'm talking about, it's things like when ChatGPT came out, November 2022, the board was not informed in advance about that. We learned about ChatGPT on Twitter.
Something the board and Altman are legally restrained from talking about (due to, for example an NDA with a third party)
While not explicitly confirmed, she says that she "can't share all the examples" of Sam's misconduct and notes that "I can share because it's been very widely reported" the attempt to force her out, suggesting that there's some kind of legal restrictions in place. (The revelation that OpenAI were forcing all employees to sign secret NDAs is also relevant here.)
Oh, thanks for compiling this! Definitely some interesting info here, but I think most of this isn't enough to count as a significant alteration to the resolution.
The one possible exception is if that interview would have been enough to convince sophia to resolve "Sam tried to oust other board member(s)" to YES, instead of the N/A it ended up being. But I think that Sophia's standards for evidence were such that if she didn't resolve that to YES at the time with all the evidence, she still probably wouldn't have after this interview.
So I think this still likely resolves to NO, nothing Helen said in that interview was a huge departure from what we already knew in January.
It would have to be a significant flip, like one of the options very low like Sexual Assault to Yes or one of the options very high like Ousting Board Members to No.
There are several options in the middle probability range that are all about the specific wording and Sophia's judgement, and I think there's no way to judge if those resolutions would be altered because no one knows how they'd resolve right now.
@jskf To pick a specific example, consider "Interpersonal squabbles not related to AI safety" which is at 49%.
Neither I nor the market know how Sophia would resolve this option right now, because it's all about her definition of "squabbles" and whether or not trying to get rid of Toner is related to AI safety or not. So because I don't know if this option would resolve No or Yes today, if it resolves to No or Yes in 6 months I don't know if that's a flip or not.
More examples:
If we learned that actually the whole thing about Helen Toner was totally exaggerated and not important, that's obviously a significant development.
If we learned that actually it really was all about Sam's attempt to start an AI Chip company, which was an early theory that's now at 6%, that's a significant development.
These kinds of developments would justify extending the market close date, if we thought one might occur.