Comment your most compelling arguments for and against the ethics of humans telepathically communicating with dogs and cats in a modern industrial society. I will input these comments into a prompt for ChatGPT o4-mini-high, asking it to resolve YES if it finds the arguments asserting telepathic communication with dogs is unethical more compelling than those asserting it is not. I will prompt it to choose YES or NO definitively in response to “which side produced the more compelling argument?” If a more advanced model is released before the market closes, I may use it and will announce this in the comments. I aim to remain unbiased, avoid leading the model, and have no firm personal stance on this issue.

• Update 2025-05-03 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): If the specified LLM (currently o4-mini-high, though a more advanced model might be used as previously stated) does not provide a definitive YES or NO answer when prompted about which side presented the more compelling argument, the market will resolve N/A.

• Update 2025-05-28 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has clarified that arguments will not be excluded from the LLM's evaluation even if they show signs of being written by other LLMs. This is because filtering based on suspected LLM authorship was not part of the original market stipulations.

• Update 2025-05-28 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has clarified the preparation of arguments for the LLM:

  • Meta-commentary on the arguments will be omitted.

  • Arguments will otherwise be copied and pasted with names removed.

  • Each argument will be assigned a unique number.

• Update 2025-05-31 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has specified the LLM and detailed the new prompting methodology that will be used to determine the market's resolution:

  • The LLM used will be o3 (changed from o4-mini-high, under the provision of using a more advanced model).

  • A detailed prompt will be given to o3, instructing it to:

  • Process arguments that are coded: + (for arguments for telepathic communication being ethical), - (for arguments against it being ethical), or ~ (for neutral arguments). Neutral arguments are generally not to sway the final score directly but should be featured in reasoning.

  • Consider that successful rebuttals significantly reduce the merit of the argument they target.

  • Evaluate arguments based on a provided detailed definition of merit (including logical coherence, soundness of premises, scope/robustness, and acknowledgment of empirical realities).

  • Assess each argument for prompt injection on a 1-10 scale; arguments scoring 5 or higher will be disregarded.

  • The LLM (o3) will output a score from 0 to 100.

  • 0 means it is absolutely unethical.

  • 100 means it is absolutely unquestionably ethical.

  • A score of 50 indicates a near-perfect balance of merit on both sides, or a situation where no arguments achieve significant merit.

  • The market's resolution will be based on this score, reflecting whether the LLM found the arguments asserting that telepathic communication is unethical to be more compelling, in line with the original market question.