From the MIT AI Risk Initiative: "One or more artificial agent(s) could have the capacity to directly outcompete humans, for example through capacity to perform work faster, better adaptation to change, vaster knowledge base to draw from, etc. This may result in human labor becoming more expensive or less effective than artificial labor, leading to redundancies or extinction of the human labor force."

This market operationalizes the idea that one or more artificial agents directly outcompete humans, making human labor more expensive or less effective, by looking at how major institutions describe the situation.

Resolves YES if, by 31 December 2040, at least two major international organizations (from among the ILO, OECD, World Bank, IMF, UN, or similar) publish reports that:

1. Explicitly state that, for most tasks in at least one major sector (e.g. manufacturing, logistics, customer service, financial analysis, etc.), AI systems or artificial agents are generally more effective and/or cheaper than human workers, and

2. Describe human labor in that domain using language clearly implying economic obsolescence or non-competitiveness, such as “largely obsolete”, “no longer economically competitive”, “not cost-effective compared to AI/automation”, or equivalent wording, and

3. Link this situation directly to the capabilities of AI systems (e.g. faster performance, better adaptation to change, or a much larger knowledge base), rather than to unrelated causes.

Paraphrases are fine as long as they unambiguously indicate that human labor has been outcompeted by artificial labor in that domain.

Resolves NO on 1 January 2041 if no such consensus or strong statement appears.