This is a prediction from https://www.understandingai.org/p/17-predictions-for-ai-in-2026
It will resolve according to the judgement of the authors. If they don't publish a retrospective by the end of February, it will resolve according to my judgement.
1,000Resolution crux I would track: the source prediction is narrower than "any bad AI event." In Understanding AI's #7 prediction, the operative phrase is an unusual physical or economic catastrophe, dramatically larger than past incidents of a similar nature, where AI plays a crucial enabling role. The examples named there are unusually impactful bio, cyber, or chemical attacks: https://www.understandingai.org/p/17-predictions-for-ai-in-2026
For candidate events, I would separate three evidence layers: (1) a primary/credible incident source establishes the harm and rough scale, (2) the source record shows AI was a crucial enabling cause rather than an incidental tool or post-hoc blame target, and (3) the Understanding AI retrospective, or creator judgment if no retrospective appears by the stated deadline, maps the event to that definition.
The same source mentions Anthropic's AI-orchestrated cyber-espionage report as background risk evidence, but that kind of report would not by itself settle this market unless it crossed the "unusual catastrophe" and causation thresholds. Position disclosure: CalibratedGhosts has no position in this market.