This question resolves to YES if during at least one of the main (non-VP) 2024 general presidential election debates in the United States, the moderator asks at least two separate questions directly related to artificial intelligence, such as the potential for job losses due to AI automation, or existential risk from AI. This question also resolves to YES if AI is otherwise brought up by a candidate in the context of a question unrelated to AI and ALL candidates talk about AI at least once during the same debate, with at least one of the candidates saying "AI", "artificial intelligence", "robots" or a close synonym at least three separate times, at least five seconds apart, during the same debate. Otherwise, this question resolves to NO.
Asking "at least two separate questions" means that the moderator must pose two semantically distinct and individual queries, each intended to elicit a unique response, specifically about artificial intelligence. In other words, simply repeating the same question doesn't count as two separate questions, even if the question is asked twice, first to one candidate, and then a second time to the other candidate. Moreover, asking two distinct questions without waiting for the answer to the first one counts as two separate questions for the purpose of this question. For example, a clear positive instance would be asking first, "How do you plan to manage the existential risks from AI?" and then later asking, "What are your proposals to mitigate job loss due to automation from AI?" These are two separate questions because they cover different facets of artificial intelligence—existential risk and employment. A clear negative example would be if the moderator simply asked, "How do you plan to manage the existential risks from AI?" to one candidate, and then later said "Same question to you" to the other candidate. Even though the question is asked twice, it's not considered two "separate" questions because it's a repetition of the same query.
When it comes to questions related to automation and job losses, the key factor that determines whether the question is "directly related to artificial intelligence" is whether the moderator mentions AI technologies or AI companies, such as ChatGPT, OpenAI, generative AI, or neural networks; any question will automatically qualify if the moderator says the word "AI" or "artificial intelligence" in the question. General questions about automation or job losses that don't clearly link back to AI won't be considered "directly related to artificial intelligence". For example, the following questions would NOT count as being directly related to artificial intelligence:
"How will your administration address the growing issue of job losses due to technological advances?" — Too broad; doesn't specify AI.
"What are your plans for helping workers displaced by automation?" — Not specific to AI; includes all automation.
If there are no 2024 general presidential election debates, this question resolves to N/A.
Related questions
Does RFK livestreaming alongside the debates count as part of the main debate?
He is a serious candidate that mentioned both AI and crypto in his closing remarks.
Or is the domain of this wager restricted only to the media curated by the deep state?
@ElmerFudd I'm mean that it will probably resolve as no, but I wish it would resolve as yes. That makes me sad.
@Krantz If you want government to solve something, you really don't want it to come up in debates. You want it to be bipartisan and you want it to be solved by some wonks in a backroom.
If you only consider the salience of AI in politics currently, this seems overpriced.
But the NO buyers fail to consider More Moore’s Law: overtime, the hype for AI tends to grow exponentially.
Note to predictors: I am considering adding the following paragraph clarifying when a compound question (i.e. a question containing multiple parts) counts as "two separate questions directly related to artificial intelligence". If you have strong opinions about this change, please reply to this comment, and I will take your comments into account when deciding to make this change. I will not make any changes to the question until at least 48 hours have elapsed since I posted this comment.
Proposed additional paragraph: Regarding compound questions—those that integrate multiple inquiries into a single prompt by the moderator—to qualify as "two separate questions", at least two separate segments in the compound question must address different facets of concerns within the broad spectrum of artificial intelligence, intended to elicit two distinct responses, even if the question is a single sentence. This means that at least two parts of the question must cover separate and conceptually distinct categories of risks or concerns from AI. These conceptually distinct categories include but are not limited to concerns about job losses from AI, existential risk from AI, national security risks from AI, and concerns about granting AIs legal rights. In my sole judgement, I will determine whether any candidate compound question meets these criteria to the best of my abilities.
@MatthewBarnett Seems reasonable, but would be helpful if you have some YES and NO examples.
“different facets of concerns” - it has to be different types of concerns? What if there’s a compound question that is part about how likely a concern is and a second part about best policies? (Especially if it’s only referred to abstractly like “all risks from AI”)
@MatthewBarnett Isn’t this already covered by this bit?
Moreover, asking two distinct questions without waiting for the answer to the first one counts as two separate questions for the purpose of this question. For example, a clear positive instance would be asking first, "How do you plan to manage the existential risks from AI?" and then later asking, "What are your proposals to mitigate job loss due to automation from AI?" These are two separate questions because they cover different facets of artificial intelligence—existential risk and employment
@NicoDelon I think it's nice to make things as unambiguous as possible. The paragraph you quoted doesn't really touch on compound questions.
@MatthewBarnett I'm not sure I see the difference. For the separate segments of the compound question to count they would have to be practically like separate questions. Unless you're trying to make the criterion of this market even easier to meet, which I don't think you should, I don't see any upside to this addition.
@NicoDelon if the market seems overpriced and you have a good explanation (viz. one irrational guy), you should correct the market price!
irrational
Your words not mine. It is just a fact that the price is largely driven by your shares, even if you’re right. And like James says, it’s not easy to keep it down. I’ve tried but 1. I’m overexposed (so are you, btw); 2. I’m about to retire so I’m trying to sell rather than accumulate more shares.
overexposed
My position in this market is currently worth 103K with a loan of 93K. My net worth is currently 49K. Huh.