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

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).