Am I missing reading this?

To me this is a clear yes, he has announced a for profit company.

"Public" means "publicly-traded" i.e. it has a stock ticker on a stock exchange.

It's not clear over what time horizon: It's not publicly traded right now, but maybe it will be by the end of the year, or maybe it will be in 2030. So without specifying a horizon the worst-case is you have to wait until the company shuts down to resolve the option.

But it's not publicly-traded right now. And it likely won't be publicly-traded by the end of the current market close.

ah i totally missed that never trade on insufficient sleep

https://techcrunch.com/2024/06/19/ilya-sutskever-openais-former-chief-scientist-launches-new-ai-company/

I think from the press release it looks highly likely it is "related to the scientific research industry" already? Depends how broadly "related" is defined? But it mentions "scientific breakthroughs" and "research" in the press release.

@CDBiddulph this is redundantly worded.

I updated the wording a bit for clarity. The point of not just saying "It will be net-positive" is that some people might think it is net-neutral, and I want to ignore those responses in the poll.

Many research start-ups are operated as non-profits! I'm not sure why this was bet down to 1% either?

also... obviously many grey area entities, but since these markets are rarely N/A'ed, I think "for-profit" and "non-profit" company will be generally mutually exclusive? someone correct me if i'm off base here

@shankypanky Why was this bet up to 99%? @Avi From the release there’s no indication that it’s a public for profit company? It’s a research lab?

I'm so confused but I think some people are betting it up that don't understand what "public company" means??

I think it's also important to clarify that presumably this and any other answers without an explicit timeframe resolve based on the status of the project now, rather than whether the project ever meets the proposition. (Otherwise e.g. "It will be at Google" couldn't have already resolved because theoretically Google could acquire it later.)

Can this resolve NO?

How does "it hasn't been founded yet" resolve if he starts a new subdivision at a FAANG company?

@RyanCarey "it" refers to the project (not a company) so presumably the two aren't in conflict?

What counts as a Manifold user? Does one who has an account but has not traded within the past year (but has traded) count? And does it need to have their full name in their Manifold profile?

@RahulShah I leave it up to @SemioticRivalry to resolve, but I'll comment since I added that answer.

I think it should be a best guess about whether the person would consider themself a Manifold user. Best case would be to ask them directly; if someone claims to be a user, and has an account at all, I think that counts.

If it's a public figure with a publicly known account, I'd lean toward yes, even if it's not very active (so yes to your hypothetical example).

For unknown people (or anonymous public figure accounts), I'd expect someone would need to come forward, probably in the comments here, for us to know about it at all. That could be verified by a mod or market creator if there's doubt.

If someone says they are not a manifold user, or they've left the platform, or they deleted their account, or similar, then I'd say they are not a user for this market. But mostly, I think it's more fun to interpret this widely, the manifold user base isnt so large, if there's a reasonable association at all I'd say count it.

FAANG: Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Google
MAMAA includes companies under the Meta and Alphabet umbrellas, and Microsoft

lmao

Just to double check, Jan Leike wouldn't be considered an exec, right?

@Nat ugh i bought my position assuming he would qualify w/co-founder status taken into consideration. clarification please? (if he doesn't qualify, no biggie, I should have read the details before jumping the gun)

@Ophiuchus fwiw I thought the same thing, but sold out when I realized from here it was up for discussion.

I will say that he does not count

oops—I missed the comment last night. sorry for the delay in response. according to his Twitter bio, Jan Leike was "ML Researcher, co-leading Superalignment @OpenAI" which is not an executive role. he was also never on the board.

I see he's been added by name, so that's the option to bet on if you think he may be involved in Ilya's project.

@shankypanky for posterity's sake:

@Ophiuchus ah I stand corrected - I've deleted my twitter account, so thanks for screenshotting (and for the nudge)