Will there be evidence of large scale data pollution operations by the end of 2025?
22
190
450
2026
69%
chance

Considering that:


a) data pollution (large scale injection of AI generated data into the information space) and subsequent model collapse have been identified [1] as potential threats [2] for future LLM's and
b) advanced AI models will impact the geopolitical power distribution [3] and therefore be increasingly subject to geostrategic contention [4],

Do you believe that by the end of 2025, there will be evidence of large scale organized data pollution operations by state or non-state actors with the implicit or explicit goal of denigrating the performance of future LLM's taking or having taken place?

Resolution:

This market will resolve as YES if at any point before 01/01/2026 credible information will emerge that a deliberate data pollution operation by any actor (state/non-state) for any reason (geopolitical contestation, ideology, terrorism, lulz) has taken place.

Caveat: the operation must be/have been significant enough to warrant mention by a reputable news source (e.g. the NYT, WSJ, WP, BBC etc.), a government communication, a peer-reviewed scientific publication, a reputable threat intelligence service provider and/or other reputable sources not covered in this list.

I reserve the right to final judgement.

Get Ṁ200 play money
Sort by:

It’s briefly mentioned here and explored in more detail in this report.

predicts NO

@breck I somehow missed this comment. Thanks for the resources!

How are you resolving intent? Major social media sites have been astroturfed for years. Low quality disruption and nudging are indistinguishable from pollution.

predicts NO

@alexkropivny The decision will be made on the basis of best judgement, circumstancial evidence and market sentiment. I assume that no reputable source would report such an incident if plausible intent couldn't be established.

bought Ṁ30 of NO

At 73%, this market feels overpriced. Notice there both needs sufficient activity as well as credible reports about it. Maybe the novelty effect would lead to reporting even relatively minor incidences, but they would still need to be detected somehow. Buying some NO shares.

bought Ṁ10 of YES

I hope not

bought Ṁ20 of YES

Technically trivial to do, and the incentives are there

predicts NO
Comment hidden
bought Ṁ20 YES from 69% to 70%