The market will resolve as YES if any federal law prohibits human drivers from operating any type of motor vehicle on public roads by December 31, 2040.
The market will resolve as NO if no such law exists by that date.
The market will not consider any exemptions, waivers, or grandfather clauses that may allow some drivers to continue driving under certain conditions. The market will also not consider any laws that require drivers to obtain a special permit that is not easily achievable or widely available.
Related questions
@ShadowyZephyr Being illegal to drive a car is a really high bar. Americans love their cars and even relatively small measures (like banning selling new gasoline powered cars) are going to be hugely controversial. If a political party seriously suggested this they'd be giving up the complete control of government to the other party. I give this <1%. (The market is not worth betting lower because of interest rates.)
It depends when the singularity happens. If transformer-based AI brings about an explosion, I think it could happen. My personal estimate for the chance is 15-20%.
@ShadowyZephyr Even in a singularity, a friendly AI would probably keep it legal, since it’s a way to make humans happy for relatively low cost (the AI could kick in if it detects danger, for an even lower cost). Something like uploading could fulfill the same goal in an even safer way, but that requires even more assumptions about timelines and the power of the AI. If it’s an unfriendly AI, then this faces the same problems as the markets about whether AI will make humans extinct, so I think it’s correct to ignore that option. Predictions about post-singularity are difficult, but that doesn’t mean that the side that is more ‘AI-themed’ is right either.
@Gabrielle IDTechEx's report says that the safety of autonomous vehicles will match that of human-driven vehicles by 2024, and that humans driving will be outlawed by 2050. Considering how good transformer models are proving to be I don't think 2040 is that much of a stretch.
The only reason I think it's ~20% and not more is because politicians (especially conservatives) will stall it needlessly.
@ShadowyZephyr I fully believe that the safety will be much better. But humans (particularly in the USA) care a lot more about enjoying their cars than they do about safety.
@Gabrielle Yeah, that's why I don't think it's likely, But I still think <5% is too low.
@CarsonGale Small bet only because I put the probability around 10-11%. For any safetyist hot take there's always a small but serious chance the Dems will seriously go for it. See the gas stove controversy earlier this year.
@ConnorWilliams This is a good example of why I think it's valuable to put probabilities to things. With your first message, I would have interpreted your probability as <5% chance.