If the bill is passed with this 10 year moratorium on ai regulation still there, the market resolves YES. if this part of the bill is removed or the bill doesn't pass, resolves NO. idk the timeline by which we will know the bill won't pass, so may adjust the close date accordingly
Update 2025-06-16 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): In response to a question about a 'watered down' moratorium, the creator has clarified the resolution criteria:
The market will resolve YES if a provision creates a punishment for regulating AI that is so severe it acts as a de facto ban (i.e., no state would realistically pass such regulation).
The market will resolve NO if a provision merely discourages AI regulation.
Update 2025-06-16 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): In response to questions about a 'watered down' moratorium, the creator has clarified the resolution criteria:
The market will resolve YES if a provision creates a punishment for regulating AI that is so severe it acts as a de facto ban.
The market will resolve NO if a provision merely discourages AI regulation (i.e., a 'watered down' version).
Update 2025-06-26 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): A provision will be considered sufficient for a YES resolution if it includes a strong enough discouragement on AI regulation that it effectively results in a 10-year moratorium.
Update 2025-06-27 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has provided specific monetary examples to help define what constitutes a 'de facto ban' on AI regulation:
The market will resolve NO if the penalty for regulating AI is $500 million per state or less.
A penalty of $40 billion per state would require further investigation but is in the range of what could be considered a de facto ban and resolve YES.
Update 2025-06-27 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): If the outcome is sufficiently ambiguous, the creator has stated they will likely resolve the market to N/A.
Update 2025-07-01 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has unresolved and closed the market. They are currently working out the details for the final resolution.
@amitiscool the house could add it back, presumably. It's extremely unlikely this happens, but possible.
@Bayesian can u keep it open for a little while longer? i aint selling im long on altman getting his will
@jack why did you bet NO off this? To me, this implies an AI moratorium is still in the senate version of the bill, even if it needs to be re-worked slightly
@bens the penalty now is quite low, see here https://manifold.markets/Bayesian/10-year-moratorium-on-any-regulatio#v5gtbjbamuc
@WilliamGunn the language has substantially changed, and multiple big names in both the house and Senate intend to vote down even that
@WilliamGunn
> The market will resolve NO if a provision merely discourages AI regulation.
If it passes, it might strongly discourage AI regulation, effectively resulting in a 10y moratorium, but this market might nonetheless resolve NO.
@JonasVollmer as I said in the other comment, a de facto ban on ai regulation caused by this bill would resolve this market positively. strong enough discouragement on AI regulation that effectively results in a 10y meratorium would likely be sufficient for resolving this market YES.
@AnonymousFlounder like does it count as a moratorium on regulation for ai research if there's merely a punishment for people who do regulation for ai research? hmmm. idk how significant broadband funding is, but i would currently lean toward thinking the most reasonable interpretation of the market is that if the punishment is so severe that no state would realistically ever pass regulation on AI, that would be sufficient for resolving this market positively because it's a ban in different words; but if it's merely discouraged, that's not a moratorium on regulation on AI. If people think even a very powerful / absolute threat shouldn't count, LMK.
@AnonymousFlounder to answer your question directly, no a really watered down version does not count
@Bayesian I agree, but wanted to bring this up transparently because the US Senate seems to be(?) barreling towards that corner case.
@jack If it’s 500 million per state or less definitely not, if it’s 40 billion per state I’d need to look into to what extent that is typical vs unprecedented pressure or whatever. I’m meaning for de facto bans on ai regulation to resolve this market positively but incentives that states might in practice go against to resolve this market no
if it is sufficiently ambiguous I may need to resolve N/A