@mods Market creator gone. This market, as well as its many sister markets, is heavily traded. There might come a point where "we have AGI because 'duh we saw it and everybody knows", but more likely there will be drama. This will be a negative experience for many traders (users, potential customers).

I think this should be dealt with now rather than when more damage is done.

Some thoughts:

There are some sort of resolution criteria, so if this was supposed to resolve according to Metaculus, there would have been a reference. Thus I don't think traders could assume resolution according to Metaculus. Plus over there, there's at least the "weak" and the "strong" one.

If mods still think this should resolve to one of the Metaculus questions, or some other in-house market, this should be added to the criteria now instead of waiting until it's too late (and of course traders should be pinged).

My suggestion: N/A all these, create duplicates, add a reference market upon which resolution depends on, and tag traders.

@Primer I agree it's challenging, but as somebody who has made quite a bit of mana by market making, I'd be opposed to NA. I'd prefer resolving to current probability at a random time.

But I'm also happy with mods using discretion and their best interpretation of the criteria as written. We all traded in the market without being able to read the creator's mind, and now we're trading without being able to read the mods' minds, so we're in no worse a situation.

@Fion Yeah, I'm also aware N/Aing is against the consensus.

Keeping these open while many traders aren't aware the creator account is deleted, while others bet based on their knowledge that a mod will resolve this (and maybe can guess which mod and infer their reasoning from.prior information) is bad.

At the very least, traders should be pinged and educated on the situation and following modalities (Single mod decision? Panel of 3? Resolve to PROB? ...?) I'm an active user on a >700 day streak, but I don't know what's supposed to be consensus course of action.

Disclaimer: To my knowledge I'm not holding a position in any of the relevant markets.

https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1ih5h8w/humanitys_last_exam_creator_thinks_the_benchmark/

Should this become true, would this market resolve as yes? The definition isn't super clear and different from here: https://manifold.markets/ManifoldAI/agi-when-resolves-to-the-year-in-wh-d5c5ad8e4708

AGI When? [High Quality Turing Test]

This market resolves to the year in which an AI system exists which is capable of passing a high quality, adversarial Turing test. It is used for the Big Clock on the manifold.markets/ai page. The Turing test, originally called the imitation game by Alan Turing in 1950, is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. For proposed testing criteria, refer to this Metaculus Question by Matthew Barnett, or the Longbets wager between Ray Kurzweil and Mitch Kapor. As of market creation, Metaculus predicts there is an ~88% chance that an AI will pass the Longbets Turing test before 2030, with a median community prediction of July 2028. Manifold's current prediction of the specific Longbets Turing test can be found here: @/dreev/will-ai-pass-the-turing-test-by-202 This question is intended to determine the Manifold community's median prediction, not just of the Longbets wager specifically but of any similiarly high-quality test. Additional Context From Longbets: One or more human judges interview computers and human foils using terminals (so that the judges won't be prejudiced against the computers for lacking a human appearance). The nature of the dialogue between the human judges and the candidates (i.e., the computers and the human foils) is similar to an online chat using instant messaging. The computers as well as the human foils try to convince the human judges of their humanness. If the human judges are unable to reliably unmask the computers (as imposter humans) then the computer is considered to have demonstrated human-level intelligence. Additional Context From Metaculus: This question refers to a high quality subset of possible Turing tests that will, in theory, be extremely difficult for any AI to pass if the AI does not possess extensive knowledge of the world, mastery of natural language, common sense, a high level of skill at deception, and the ability to reason at least as well as humans do. A Turing test is said to be "adversarial" if the human judges make a good-faith attempt, in the best of their abilities, to successfully unmask the AI as an impostor among the participants, and the human confederates make a good-faith attempt, in the best of their abilities, to demonstrate that they are humans. In other words, all of the human participants should be trying to ensure that the AI does not pass the test. Note: These criteria are still in draft form, and may be updated to better match the spirit of the question. Your feedback is welcome in the comments.

https://x.com/emollick/status/1880717680740913564

LLMs pass displaced Turing test

Crazy that this market was created over a year ago 1.1k trades and there are still no clear resolution criteria.

@SimoneRomeo Well, we definitely don't have AGI right now

@MalachiteEagle I mean, sure, since there are no objective resolution criteria 😂😂

can you define in more detail what you mean by AGI?

metaculus has good examples of resolution criteria and also immediately demonstrates how far apart reasonable definitions can be. without a reasonable definition it'll be hard to get accurate predictions.

https://www.metaculus.com/questions/3479/date-weakly-general-ai-is-publicly-known/

When will the first weakly general AI system be devised, tested, and publicly announced?

https://www.metaculus.com/questions/5121/date-of-artificial-general-intelligence/

@alextes That question is so ridiculously complex that it is meaningless.

It's asking for the model to learn something over 100 human hours. Who cares about that? If the model can do it a million times without any human intervention, what does it matter if it took 1000 hours for it to train in the first place? Also, at the same time it was learning this task, the model learned a million other things, too.

That question is an example of something that was informed by "at the time" thinking of how AI would go and it's a horribly obsolete way to look at it.

@SteveSokolowski sure but besides my point. The resolution criteria are clear. I’m guessing you’d agree that regardless of whether the fulfilled criteria are an indication of something meaningful or not, them being clear enough that one can predict them is a meaningful prerequisite.

@alextes Well, my issue with that market is also more broad. It's not clear to me why the date keeps getting pushed back. When GPT-4 was released, that date stood around June 30, 2025 and I think that things are turning out that that date will have been correct.

My guess is that they're never going to resolve that market, because the specific resolution critiera there are so irrelevant to AI capabilities that we'll have AIs pumping out new physics every 12h before that resolves.

@alextes I think this manifold question is worded in a way that will make it have much more longevity in that sense

2🍎25