Something happens is defined as anything that:
Zvi does not know about on August 2, 2026 at 5pm EST (he knows about the math proofs, which will be Monday's post)
Obligates (not merely allows) a speed premium post to Don't Worry About the Vase
Is about AI.
The speed premium post can happen after Friday, but the central events that trigger it must occur by Friday 5pm eastern.
Resolves YES if this happens.
Resolves NO if it does not.
To avoid leaking information, I will not resolve this market before close unless either (A) the post has been published, or (B) it is trading 95%+ and I know that it will eventually resolve YES.
ADDED 8/3: Oh and if you think something in particular has happened and are thus buying please do comment to say what it is if no one else has yet!
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ937 | |
| 2 | Ṁ896 | |
| 3 | Ṁ313 | |
| 4 | Ṁ300 | |
| 5 | Ṁ300 |
@ZviMowshowitz "I will have continuing coverage of that situation tomorrow..." Does that count as a "speed premium" post? (If so, resolve this question.) Or does it need to be something where a post is primarily in response to a specific precipitating event within the past 24 hours?
@TimHu I will be abiding by my own rules: I will only resolve this if it is 95%+ OR if the post in question is already out. I think it's important to honor precommitments.
(For next week I changed it to 90%)
@ZviMowshowitz The market is now above 95% so you can either resolve it, or confirm that the ongoing cyber stories aren’t sufficient to count (which seems right to me, this is just a continuation of last week’s news).
Do you think something will happen every single week for the rest of the year?
If so, check out /nsokolsky/will-something-happen-in-ai-every-s
@Bayesian they absolutely are. Their business people want to show off the models' capabilities, their governance people love responsible disclosures, and their lawyers are sleeping soundly after the amicable resolution of the Fable situation. It's all upside.
@MaxA i can also make up stories that justify the opposite side. their business people want to not have the ai be viewed as evil and dangerous because businesses don't like that kind of risk. their governance people love not having their ais be evil hackers, and their lawyers would like to sleep soundly from not having to get into a legal situation because their AIs are committing what would be a felony if they had done it on purpose. despite this I'm voicing my pretty strongly held opinion that they are not chasing this
@Bayesian Your argument is built on a shaky foundation: the assumption that the leaders of AI labs care about their public image.
The situation with anti-data center movements suggests they don't because they haven't even internalized the problem. nytimes.com
Are y'all thinking it's this? MTS (@MTSlive) on X
