See this LessWrong discussion for context: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Np5Q3Mhz2AiPtejGN/we-re-not-ready-thoughts-on-pausing-and-responsible-scaling-4?commentId=dz8WsKHGFKN7YxsGX
Anthropic has a number of security commitments in their RSP that they say they need to meet before they develop models they define as "ASL-3 models".
This question will resolve based on whatever the consensus answer between me and Evan (Hubinger) is whether Anthropic did indeed delay scaling or developing more powerful systems for at least one month as a result of those security commitments. This question will resolve whenever Anthropic reaches ASL-4, or when neither me nor Evan think the answer to this is still really going to change (e.g. if Anthropic closes down, or RSPs aren't really a thing anymore, etc.).
If me and Evan disagree I'll ask the following people (in order) to resolve this question one way or another, going down the list whenever someone doesn't respond to me in a day or so, or doesn't want to look into this: Buck Shlegeris, Nate Soares, Holden Karnofsky, Paul Christiano, Mark Xu
So to be clear, is this (A) a market on whether the current commitments will cause a pause or is it (B) a market on whether Anthropic's future RSPs will cause them to pause, including via new commitments they have not yet made?
(From the comments discussion that led to this, it seemed like a disagreement over (A), and one might be interested in both)
If the new security commitments seem approximately strictly stronger than present ones, then I would resolve it as "Yes" (i.e. if they kind subsume the present ones). If they change in a bunch of different ways that aren't strictly stronger, I would resolve it as "No" (since then the current commitments did indeed not really matter).