Will Anthropic publicly endorse or support SB 1047?

1kṀ28k

resolved Sep 1

Resolved

ALL

Resolves YES if Anthropic publicly and clearly endorses or supports SB 1047.

Resolves NO if they do not, no matter what they do in private, and the bill is signed or vetoed by Newsom, or the legislature's session ends.

AI Regulation

Get

1,000

to start trading!

🏅 Top traders

#	Name	Total profit
1		Ṁ671
2		Ṁ428
3		Ṁ266
4		Ṁ226
5		Ṁ170

People are also trading

Who will publicly comment on SB-1047 before EOY 2024?

Will Senator Scott Wiener be employed by an AI company like Anthropic within the next 12 months?

7% chance

If SB-1047 (or reasonably similar legislation) is run as a ballot initiative in California in 2026, will it pass?

72% chance

If passed, will 2 or more AI orgs significantly shift their operations from California and give SB 1047 as the reason?

12% chance

If passed, will SB 1047 cover any Open Source model before 2029, not including those of Meta, OpenAI, Anthropic, etc?

45% chance

Will Scott Wiener's SB 53 become law?

55% chance

Will Anthropic, before 2035, completely halt development of AI and attempt to persuade other organizations to do so?

21% chance

If not passed, will there be any open source model that would have been covered by SB 1047, by January 1st 2027?

Sort by:

Yep, edge case, but I'm going to go ahead and rule on it now (without resolving the market yet). I have confirmed my judgment with Claude and also ChatGPT. This letter, on its own, is NOT sufficient to constitute clear support. If they do not issue any further statements, it will resolve NO.

Of course, they could still do something between now and when the bill resolves, that would move this to support or endorsement.

Since debate hasn't finished: TBC: I do think this was a reasonable one to disagree about, but once it's done it's done.

@ZviMowshowitz Yeah I thought it was a clear YES but I now bought a lot of NO shares based on how you decided to resolve it

sold Ṁ215 NO

Uhhh…. Edge case incoming lol:

“In our assessment the new SB 1047 is substantially improved, to the point where we believe its benefits likely outweigh its costs. However, we are not certain of this, and there are still some aspects of the bill which seem concerning or ambiguous to us.“

https://x.com/jackclarksf/status/1826743366652232083?s=46&t=62uT9IruD1-YP-SHFkVEPg

I feel like they've publicly and clearly supported SB 1047, but have publicly and clearly not endorsed it. Given the use of "or" in the question and description, I think this should resolve yes

[edit- repeated top-level quote]

I don’t think this is ready to resolve yet.

Agree with Daniel Eth's take

Come on, support in this context clearly means something stronger than the position Anthropic is taking here. Their stance is too neutral to count as "endorse or support"

I agree with Rocket.

I gotta say I also agree with Daniel Eth. I no longer have shares in this market by the way, but I’d say this counts as “support”.

No shares, I think it should count.

This probably has more room to drop (from 18%) considering one of their key demands, removing pre-harm enforcement, was not in the final version passed by the appropriations committee.

Pre-harm enforcement was very substantially narrowed. It's up to them how to view that.

It needs to be unconditional support, right? The previous "support if amended" shenanigans don't count, right?

And what if Anthropic subsequently (but before the bill is signed / vetoed by Newsom, or the legislative session ends) retracts their support?

Yeah, conditionals do not count.

I'm not going to wait on resolution to check if they retract (and honestly I'll be stunned if they do it and then undo it, unless some really obnoxious floor amendments happen).