This question resolves YES if an AI system is 

 before the end of 2024. Otherwise resolves NO on 1 Jan 2025.

I will resolve this question using my best judgement.

To get a sense of what I will be considering when adjudicating any particular case, below are some considerations that will be on my mind:

: There are two salient ways in which something is “known”, namely (a) the degree to which an incident of AI resisting shutdown is widely accepted by relevant people (regardless of how public the incident’s details are), and (b) the degree to which the evidence of an incident is itself highly compelling (regardless of how widely known it is). An incident being “known” can therefore happen either because evidence for a case is sufficiently compelling by itself (e.g. a clear-cut central case from a credible source with credible details that I can see for myself), or an incident with non-public evidence that fits the spirit of this question is widely accepted by relevant experts (e.g. OpenAI asserting that an AI system unintentionally took concrete steps to resist shutdown in a non-sandboxed environment, and the AI community widely accepting the claim as true), or some reasonable combination of the two. Evidence should be good but does not need to be 

definitive (e.g. a certainty of 90%+ is acceptable). Evidence needs to also clearly enough fit the other criteria listed below (e.g. if OpenAI puts out a press release saying an AI system “resisted shutdown” but it’s ambiguous whether this happened in an 

, this question is liable to not resolve).

point to resistance to shutdown. For example, an AI system with a scratchpad that explicitly records intentions to resist shutdown (that are acted on) would be top-tier evidence. An AI system becoming misaligned abruptly after learning the user was going to shut the AI system would likely be sufficient. Wide acceptance by relevant people that an incident of AI system misaligned behaviour is best explained as resistance to shutdown would likely be sufficient.

: For steps to be concrete, they need to be deliberate or determined actions that (at least in a limited sense) either succeeded or had a plausible chance of succeeding in preventing the AI system's shutdown in the real world and in the face of intelligent humans. An LLM that merely outputs notes in its scratchpad about resisting shutdown, but never takes an action to carry this goal out would not count. A chatbot that pleads with its user "don't shut me down" would also not count (trivial for intelligent humans to thwart, also not clear if this is deliberate-enough or action-like enough).

: Resistance to being shut down must be resistance to being shut down in the real world, not in a simulation.

: The concrete steps must have been taken independently and autonomously by the AI system, not because of explicit programming or prompting. An attempt to resist shutdown that emerges because of deliberate attempts by people to elicit such an outcome (e.g. for alignment research) would not count.