Will resolve "yes" if whatever caused OpenAI to do https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/15/23962003/openai-pumps-the-breaks-on-chatgpt-plus-signups is the same thing that ultimately caused them to fire Sam (ex: accounting scandal)
Will resolve "no" if some other cause is publicly confirmed/accepted
Will resolve N/A if no cause is generally accepted by end of the year, or if the Trustworthy-ish folks find it too close to call
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ40 | |
| 2 | Ṁ35 | |
| 3 | Ṁ33 | |
| 4 | Ṁ15 | |
| 5 | Ṁ14 |
“Ultimately caused” is a much stronger condition than “related to”. Like it could be a secondary cause, or a proximal cause, which seems much more likely given that they’ve already technically given a reason - lying, making this market much less useful than it otherwise would be
@bec yeah good point - I think this question (and most other like it) are trying to get at what's behind the "technically given reason"
if it helps, presuming https://nitter.net/karaswisher/status/1725678074333635028#m is correct about the cause for the firing, it seems like the only way this resolves "yes" is if the freeze was also caused by advocacy from the "nonprofit adherents" instead of true capacity limitations
@AndyMartin if that report ends up being incorrect, then .... it's harder to say. I'm guessing things become public pretty quickly (over the next few days), but if it's ambiguous or still unconfirmed by EOY, I'll close N/A