Resolves YES if it becomes public knowledge that some of the top-five AI labs (as per executives/spokespeople in relevant areas at OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, etc) would have agreed to coordinate in some way specific and relevant to reducing world-scale risks from AI, but were prevented by fear of antitrust regulation or actual antitrust regulatory action.

Example of positive resolution would be Sam Altman (verifiably and credibly) saying "I talked seriously with X and Y other labs about enacting a pause, but the regulators didn't like it". Another example would be labs actually announcing a pause, then some EU/US antitrust regulatory action occurs opposed in some way to that announcement. (The regulators need not block the pause fully to qualify for positive resolution - it qualifies for positive resolution if the regulators successfully instill substantial fears/uncertainties around further coordination)

Also resolves YES if I become convinced that antitrust regulation is blocking AI lab coordination in some other way that is very obvious in retrospect but I can't foresee enough to write into this market :)

A statement of only one party's intent to pause (such as Altman saying "I would want to pause but we checked with the regulators and we can't") is subject to my judgment. The intent is to resolve YES if the statement is credible, there are other labs with similar statements, and the pause would have been enacted if not for the regulator, but not if the executive is just using it as an excuse to avoid a hard conversation/negotiation with other labs.

Resolves NO if no such story becomes public knowledge by end of 2024.