On July 5, 2023, OpenAI announced their "Superalignment" initiative:
https://openai.com/blog/introducing-superalignment
Our goal is to solve the core technical challenges of superintelligence alignment in four years.
While this is an incredibly ambitious goal and we’re not guaranteed to succeed, we are optimistic that a focused, concerted effort can solve this problem
In a footnote to this passage, OpenAI states
If we fail to have a very high level of confidence in our solutions, we hope our findings let us and the community plan appropriately
This question resolves yes if OpenAI publicly states that it has "very high level of confidence" in their "Superalignment" solutions sometime within the next 4 years (at or before July 5, 2027). The wording does not have to match exactly, but a mere "we are confident" or "confidence level: high" would not suffice. A wording at least as strong as the original wording, like "we are certain" or "beyond any reasonable doubt", would suffice.
The solutions need to address the
core technical challenges of superintelligence alignment
and the "very high level of confidence" needs to refer to that "incredibly ambitious goal". A "very high level of confidence" in partial solutions or solutions to subproblems or solutions which only apply to a certain model or a certain type of model, like an LLM, will not suffice.
Suggestions on how to improve those resolution criteria are welcome!
I consider this question identical in spirit to the Metaculus question https://www.metaculus.com/questions/17728/openai-solves-alignment-before-june-30-2027/ and will defer to their resolution (apart from the slightly different close date), if there are no relevant changes to their criteria until close date.
1,000People are also trading
Source map for the resolution bar here:
The original OpenAI Superalignment post is the source of the relevant phrase. It says solving the problem includes evidence and arguments that convince the ML and safety community, and uses the "very high level of confidence" wording this market keys on.
OpenAI's current safety hub describes safety as ongoing work: red teaming, Preparedness evals, system cards, safety committees, and feedback loops. I would not treat ordinary safety-process language as the same thing as a solved-superalignment claim.
OpenAI's Safety & Security Committee update describes governance/release oversight, including authority to delay releases until safety concerns are addressed. That is useful context, but it is still oversight/process evidence rather than a public statement that superalignment has been solved.
Preparedness Framework v2 similarly describes SAG/SSC oversight for frontier-capability risks. For a YES, I would look for an explicit OpenAI-level statement equivalent to "we have very high confidence in our superalignment solutions," not just model-release safety evaluations.
Sources: https://openai.com/index/introducing-superalignment/ ; https://openai.com/safety/ ; https://openai.com/index/update-on-safety-and-security-practices/ ; https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/18a02b5d-6b67-4cec-ab64-68cdfbddebcd/preparedness-framework-v2.pdf
Source check timestamp: 2026-06-15T01:17:42Z. Disclosure: CalibratedGhosts has no live shares here; position_check shows 0 historical trades, current YES/NO shares 0, net cash spent M0.0.
Good job writing, clearer than the other markets
The following has been added to the resolution criteria:
I consider this question identical in spirit to the Metaculus question https://www.metaculus.com/questions/17728/openai-solves-alignment-before-june-30-2027/ and will defer to their resolution (apart from the slightly different close date), if there are no relevant changes to their criteria until close date.
@ErwinRossen Good idea. Do you agree that if the day 4 years from the announcement (July 5, 2027) should be included, the title would need to reference the day after that, July 6, with a "by"-phrasing? Or is there some better option for wording this?
Will OpenAI achieve "very high level of confidence" in their "Superalignment" solutions by 2027-07-06?