@SirSalty @Eliza or any other mod, this market has now been extended twice, first by one month from end of Nov to end of Dec, and just now by a year to end of 2024, without justification, nor ever mentioned in description nor comments that it could extend.

The evidence has been clear for a YES resolution almost since created, yet creator ignores it. I originally bet here expecting a straightforward resolution in a few days given the facts, and was fine with an extra month to allow the creator to review the evidence. Now the creator wants a year, and refuses to acknowledge there is any evidence. It feels disingenuous or maybe even malicious. Thanks for any help.

________________

↓↓↓ EDIT ↓↓↓

Isaak commented:

Daniel has not presented any evidence, just been belligerent and try to bully me into resolving the market the way they want.

Isaak has blocked me so I can no longer comment (except in this inconvenient manner) to address their accusations of me only being belligerent and bullying them. I am not. If simply stating one's arguments for resolution is considered belligerent bullying and pressuring, then the great majority of comments on Manifold qualify, including nearly all of Isaak's.

As I said in my last comment below, I originally did not present any evidence since the facts were public and widely reported on, both by OpenAI and reputed media, so I did not think it was necessary for me to present it, thinking Isaak already had all the facts or could verify them easily. I simply argued that a logical, coherent reading of the timeline of known events implied a clear YES resolution (which indeed the market price has reflected almost since its creation).

However, I did post a tweet in that last comment (before Isaak's claim that I had not presented any evidence) by Emmett which I consider sufficient evidence of the timeline, which is precisely what this market/question is asking.

The fact that the statement mentions Mira as interim CEO was already known at the time this market was created, and was being debated; that's why I made the market. It's not new information.

I never claimed to have any new information, all the relevant facts were known from even before the creation of the market. I am simply making a logical, shockingly obvious (at least to me) argument given those facts: Mira could not have written "as interim CEO" on the 21st or later when she was no longer CEO (unless Isaak's claim is that she was lying, which would not make any sense).

Isaak seemed to understand my argument and replied asking if we knew the exact timeline to which I claim yes, we most definitely do, and which I have later shown through a quoted tweet fixing "the exact timeline" Isaak asked about.

At all times I have engaged Isaak in good faith, accepting the one-month delay, and addressing his doubts reasonably, only to find myself accused of bullying for doing so, and unable to respond due to him blocking me.

I am done here, no need to take any further action. Just felt the need to defend myself from such manipulative hypocrisy. Happy New Year to all.

________________

END EDIT

@deagol @IsaacKing did u get a chance to properly review the evidence presented by Daniel?

@SirSalty @IsaacKing I didn’t actually present the evidence since the timeline is pretty much public knowledge and I thought Isaak was sufficiently informed (he did resolve the other market with some sort of secret insider hard proof), or could easily confirm the timeline on their own.

I could point to dozens of reputed media reports and statements confirming Mira (OpenAI official blog post appointing her on Nov 17) was no longer interim CEO as of Nov 20, but I think the 5 am (ET) Nov 20 tweet from Emmett Shear himself accepting the position should suffice:

@SirSalty Daniel has not presented any evidence, just been belligerent and try to bully me into resolving the market the way they want. The fact that the statement mentions Mira as interim CEO was already known at the time this market was created, and was being debated; that's why I made the market. It's not new information.

@IsaacKing Why extend instead of resolve? The statement by Mira, which you said was legit, is coherent only if written when she was interim CEO, before the 20th.

@IsaacKing please resolve, thanks.

@deagol Hmm. Do we know the exact timeline of who was the CEO at what point? Were all the employees on the same page about the current CEO at all times?

@IsaacKing Yes, we do. There were public official company statements for both when Mira was appointed and when the other guy was. All employees being aware of anything is irrelevant, this is about the email from one employee: Mira.

You’re being ridiculous about this so I’ll stop arguing, do as you please with your market.

From the leaked statement:

…in my capacity as interim CEO, I have hired…

She was interim CEO for 2-3 days from Friday Nov 17 to Sunday Nov 19 when Emmett Shear was appointed. So the “100% legit” statement must’ve been written then, unless she was lying.

The Github page seems to have been deleted or made private, here's an archive:

https://web.archive.org/web/20231122055439/https://gist.github.com/syvb/141e41c07ba29e59d8a99283b8c5e62a