Should be federal, or in at least 75% of the states & territories.
The word significant is vague, and I am keen to clarify. I won't bet on this market.
Update 1.11.23:
Something like the recent USA executive order would count as significant, and the intention of this market was more or less to ask if Australia would have something similar happen
It would not need to contain all elements of said EO, but be comparable in the number of different domains covered and the strictness of the restriction. In particular, covering multiple domains (ie not just focused on algorithmic discrimination, privacy, or biological synthesis)
This can be done through multiple different sets of legislation
The direction doesn't matter - eg if the Australian order weakens privacy protections, or provides protection for companies being accused of algorithmic discrimination, or allows free access to biosynthesis by AIs, this would still count.
đ Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | áš33 | |
| 2 | áš31 | |
| 3 | áš30 | |
| 4 | áš19 | |
| 5 | áš18 |
Just realised that I bought shares in this market despite claiming I wouldn't in the description. đ¤Śââď¸
Let me know if you have issues with the resolution especially in light of this. I couldn't find anything in the realm of new Australian AI regulations this year.
I have a similar market for future years, so I will hopefully not mess up with the whole betting on a subjective market thing again.