This resolves YES when Eliezer pays Unknown $1,000 USD inflation adjusted to 2008/2009 dollars on the grounds that he lost the bet between Eliezer Yudkowksy and Unknown listed under "Bets decided Eventually" at Bets Registry - LessWrong

This resolves NO when Eliezer has either publicly stated or in another way conveyed to Unknown that he believes that superintelligent AI currently exists, and Yudkowsky believes that he has won the bet.

In effect the resolution of the bet has been outsourced to Eliezer because of the low stakes involved on the part of Unknown. However, in order to help guess his actions, the following clarifications were made at some point during later discussions:

1. An AI counts as "superintelligent" if it is better at every intellectual task than humans.
2. No specific length of time is required between the existence of the AI and the resolution of the bet; e.g. if the superintelligence has been around for a week or a month, and everyone knows this, Yudkowsky will lose the bet, even if the AI ends up wiping out humanity a year or two later.
3. "without paying any attention to Friendliness" does not literally mean they do not care about AI's motives, or in today's terms "alignment." It will be sufficient for Yudkowsky to lose the bet if he believes that what was done in that matter was radically insufficient to prevent the AI from destroying the world. E.g. if ChatGPT became superintelligent and did not destroy the world, my understanding of the bet is that he would lose. (Of course he is free to say in the comments that he believes otherwise, and if so that would distinctly affect the fair price here.)

(I will know with 100% certainty if Unknown is paid or if Eliezer has conveyed to them that he believes he won the bet, and will resolve it when this happens. You are free to draw whatever conclusion you like from this fact.)

I will bet YES in this market (any number of times) and will never sell any shares.