In order to qualify to resolve this market to YES, I don't have to agree with the argument, it just needs to be a real attempt to argue in favor of that conclusion, without basic logical errors. A non-exhaustive list of such errors:
Assuming the probability you want without justification, such as "if we don't know a probability it must be 0" or "obviously the probability is negligible".
Magical or non-physicalist arguments like "computers are incapable of intelligence" or "God would prevent that from occurring".
Disproving one specific attack vector and treating that as having disproven all risk. "[20 pages explaining how an AI could not possibly use stuffed animals to exterminate humanity], and therefore AI isn't a risk!"
If I'm not aware of any by market close, this resolves NO.
I won't bet.
🏅 Top traders
# | Name | Total profit |
---|---|---|
1 | Ṁ104 | |
2 | Ṁ64 | |
3 | Ṁ52 | |
4 | Ṁ47 | |
5 | Ṁ43 |