Conjecture recently released their 8 month retrospective, in which they shared their belief that they had yet to make meaningful progress on the alignment problem.
I will resolve this market to "Yes" if any of Conjecture's three founders (Connor Leahy, Sid Black, or Gabriel Alfour), or any other person who I deem as plausibly being able to speak authoritatively on Conjecture's behalf, publically state that they believe work carried out by Conjecture consitutes meaningful progress towards solving the alignment problem. If no such statement is made by Jan 1st 2024, I will resolve the market as "No".
Buying NO because mostly I think Conjecture is more pessimistic than manifold seems to think they are. Even if they do everything right by Manifold’s rights, I anticipate in most worlds they evaluate themselves as having not contributed meaningful progress.
@GarrettBaker how do you know this?
@mkualquiera Talking with some who used to work there, and their LessWrong posts.
Buying yes based on things Connor said on discord.
@VictorLevoso What did he say?
@EliasSchmied that he has a new alignment proposal that he feels optimistic about and will be published soon pending infohazard review.
@VictorLevoso I personally don't necesarily trust that until I can actually read and evaluate the proposal but seems likely that they will think it's progress unless someone points an obvious flaw.
Also apart from that I expect them to make interesting progress on interpretability that might qualify for this market.
@VictorLevoso update on this, they have now announced what their plan is and it sounds like a not terrible plan.
The question is whether they can actually pull it off and whether they'll do things that they consider meaningful work towards it before 2023.
Unfortunately they can't talk about details cause infohazards wich makes it hard for me to update a lot on one direction or another.
This does upstate a bit towards "if conjeture says they made progress they will actually have meaningful progress."
Should the title be the end of 2022? Description and end date imply that.
@vluzko thanks for pointing that out - I meant by the end of 2023 (eg 13 months time), I’ve updated the description accordingly