Update 2024-Feb-16

I never heard back from Brockman, and the price spent >5 days >=90%. Resolved YES.

Update 2024-Jan-08:

No response from Brockman. So we fall back to the Keynesian Beauty Contest. Starting Jan 8th, I will wait until the price stabilizes for 5+ days at <=10% (resolves "No"), OR spending 5+ days at >=90% (resolves "Yes").

But if Brockman replies and agrees with me, then the KBC would be cancelled and we'd switch back to resolving based on the agreement.

Update 2024-Jan-02:
I asked Brockman if he still endorses calling 2022 a "sleepy" year. However impressive 2023 was, it's misleading amnesia to call 2022 "sleepy".

But does Brockman still endorse it? We'll wait to see if he agrees. If he doesn't reply by Jan-7, then we convert this to the Keynesian Beauty Contest rules below, as a fallback. We'd also use those KBC rules if he does reply but disagrees with me (and still endorses the "sleepy" wording).

Original Description

This market is fuzzy and ambiguous. On 2022-Dec-31, Greg Brockman (Co-Founder of OpenAI) tweets:

Prediction: 2023 will make 2022 look like a sleepy year for AI advancement & adoption.

Around 2024-Jan-01, I will reply to Greg Brockman's tweet thread (or DM them), and ask if they feel that 2023 "made 2022 look like a sleepy year for AI advancement & adoption". If we agree about whether this "happened", then I'll resolve the market that way.

But if we disagree about whether this "happened", then I'll convert this market into a Keynesian Beauty Contest. I would wait for the price to stabilize, either spending 5+ days at <=10% (resolves "No"), OR spending 5+ days at >=90% (resolves "Yes"). This is only meant to be used if me and Greg Brockman don't agree afterward.

If Greg Brockman doesn't respond by 2024-Jan-7th, or gives an unclear answer, then we'll use the KBC. The close date is deliberately set excessively far in the future, so replies and reflection have whatever time they need.