To resolve yes, there must be text in a bill passed by both houses of Congress and not successfully vetoed which pertains specifically to AI. General regulations which have an impact on AI but are not specifically targeted at it will not cause the market to resolve yes. However, the bill itself does not have to be targeted at AI (a single clause in a government funding bill, for example, will lead to a yes resolution).
See also my market for specific AI regulations that will be passed by 2027: https://manifold.markets/SaviorofPlant/what-ai-regulations-will-the-us-con-d2c35cd7c772
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ451 | |
| 2 | Ṁ64 | |
| 3 | Ṁ37 | |
| 4 | Ṁ23 | |
| 5 | Ṁ23 |
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3935/text
SEC. 1024. TECHNOLOGY REVIEW OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MACHINE LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES.
(a) Review.—The Administrator shall conduct a review of current and planned artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies to improve airport efficiency and safety.
(b) Considerations.—In conducting the review required under subsection (a), the Administrator may consider—
(1) identifying best practices and lessons learned from both domestic and international artificial intelligence and machine learning technology applications to improve airport operations; and
(2) coordinating with other relevant Federal agencies to identify China’s domestic application of artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies relating to airport operations.
(c) Summaries.—The review conducted under subsection (a) shall include examination of the application of artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies to the following:
(1) Jet bridges.
(2) Airport service vehicles on airport movement areas.
(3) Aircraft taxi.
(4) Air traffic control operations.
(5) Any other areas the Administrator determines necessary to help improve airport efficiency and safety.
(d) Report.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the covered committees of Congress a report containing the results of the review conducted under subsection (a).
This is clearly "text in a bill passed by both houses of Congress which pertains specifically to AI", in...the FAA reauthorization bill, of all things? But it's establishing a review, not imposing a regulation, so I'm not sure whether it counts - it depends on whether we are going by the rule set in the description or the rule implied by the title. Any thoughts?
@SaviorofPlant the title is pretty vague. "AI regulation" could mean all sorts of things. I think the point of descriptions is to be more specific, and this text seems to meet the explicit criterion, "text in a bill passed by both houses of Congress and not successfully vetoed which pertains specifically to AI."
@traders Anyone want to argue the other side? This makes sense to me but if anyone interpreted "regulation" as meaning something more strict I'd like to hear that reasoning before I make a decision
Locking the market for now to prevent people trading on my words
@SaviorofPlant I’ll go with the textual interpretation “any AI regulation passed” by both houses (✅). And with a bit of ironic precognition: “However, the bill itself does not have to be targeted at AI (a single clause in a government funding bill, for example, will lead to a yes resolution).” (✅)— and thus, some incredible sleuthing has found the R&D section 1024 pertaining to AI in the FAA funding reauthorization!!! By mentioning it specifically , they allow for more focused funding under those topics/subtopics if they become more important. And timing was perfect- became law 5/16/24.