Title too long, didn't fit: [Resolves to 2100 expert consensus]
Resolves to YES if it is the expert consensus in 2100 that "more" AI suffering happened in a rolling year before 2030 than total farmed animal suffering happened in 2022, NO if it is consensus that there had been no such year. "More" here is a placeholder for a future operationalization of the notion corresponding to the accepted framework of sentience and suffering in 2100; if no such operationalization which is judged to be in the spirit of this market exists by then, this market resolves to N/A.
If there is no expert consensus by 2100, then this market resolves to N/A.
Note that this question refers to TOTAL suffering, not NET suffering or equivalent. So this question could resolve to YES even if AI systems are on net not-suffering (have more positive experiences than negative) and farmed animals are on net suffering, as long as AI systems experience more total suffering.
If it turns out that farmed animals are incapable of suffering (have no qualia or equivalent), then this market
1) Resolves to YES if there is any suffering whatsoever in any AI system before 2030.
2) Resolves to N/A if no AI system before 2030 turns out to be capable of suffering either.
Related markets:
The reason I’ve shifted this market’s probability so much is that the linked market also for 2040 and total suffering is currently (and was) lower probability than this one despite its later close date. It seemed like an arbitrage opportunity, so I bet NO on this market and YES on that one. I do realize that the N/A conditions for both these markets are different, though, so maybe I’m wrong? I can envision no AI capable of suffering being created before 2030, but being created between 2030 and 2040, in which case I’d have my bet here N/A-ed and lose on the other 2040 market. Did I make a mistake? Does someone know why this is higher than the 2040 one?