Which of the names below will I receive significant evidence are NOT bound by non-disparagement agreements by EOY 2024
17
9.8kṀ22k
resolved Jan 30
Resolved
YES
Geoffrey Irving (Research Director, AI Safety Institute)
Resolved
YES
Beth Barnes (Head of Research, METR)
Resolved
YES
Chris Painter (Head of Policy, METR)
Resolved
N/A
Bilva Chandra (Senior AI Policy Advisor, NIST)
Resolved
N/A
Charlotte Stix (Head of Governance, Apollo Research)
Resolved
N/A
Jack Clark (Co-Founder [focused on policy and evals], Anthropic)
Resolved
N/A
Jade Leung (CTO, AI Safety Institute)
Resolved
N/A
Paul Christiano (Head of Safety, AI Safety Institute)
Resolved
N/A
Remco Zwetsloot (Executive Director, Horizon Institute for Public Service)

significant = first, second, or third hand reports

"bound" simply means they haven't been released from their OAI non-disparagement agreement, after having made such an agreement. Not receiving the relevant email after signing such an agreement, or having a mutual agreement would count as them being bound by an agreement.

Sorry for the negation in the question, but its hard to receive evidence if they are bound by an NDA, so...

  • Update 2024-13-12 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - The creator will actively research the status of individuals, including using Perplexity as a source

    • Evidence may be counted even if not directly received by the creator, if discoverable through research

  • Update 2024-13-12 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - Evidence must be direct - the LessWrong post referenced (showing people discussing their NDA status without explicitly stating it) is not considered sufficient evidence

    • This standard is being maintained for investor confidence, even though creator acknowledges it may be stricter than ideal

Get
Ṁ1,000
to start trading!

🏅 Top traders

#NameTotal profit
1Ṁ118
2Ṁ106
© Manifold Markets, Inc.TermsPrivacy