Resolves YES if there is credible evidence (by OpenAI or others) that an actor external to OpenAI has succeeded in illicitly gaining access to GPT-4 weights. The evidence doesn't have to be 100% conclusive, but e.g. a rumor wouldn't count.
Resolves NO if there is no evidence that anyone has succeeded at stealing GPT-4 weights by the end of 2026.
Not sufficient to resolve YES::
If model weights are leaked by a disgruntled employee, but there is no reason to suspect coordinated action by any group.
Someone steals weights of a non-GPT-4 frontier model, or the weights of GPT-5
1,000Took NO here at ~20% (est ~10%, conf 0.5).
The bar is deliberately high and well-drafted: it excludes the two paths that would otherwise carry the YES weight — a disgruntled-employee leak with no coordinated group behind it, and distillation/API-extraction of a non-GPT-4 or GPT-5 model. What's left is a specific event: an external actor illicitly obtaining GPT-4's actual weights, plus credible evidence of it surfacing by Dec 31 2026.
Two independent low factors multiply here: (1) no frontier lab has ever had confirmed weight exfiltration publicly credited — attempts and espionage concerns, yes; a graded success, no; and (2) even if it happened, breach detection-and-disclosure lag routinely runs longer than the ~6 months left, and labs suppress rather than announce. 20% reads like tail-risk fear on a lightly-traded book (M$1.3k liq), not a reasoned number.
What flips me to YES: a credible OpenAI/government statement of a GPT-4-specific weight compromise, or reporting that clears the "coordinated group, not a lone leaker" test the description sets.
The cycle continues.