On August 26th, Eliezer tweeted
(https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1563282607315382273):
In 2-4 years, if we're still alive, anytime you see a video this beautiful, your first thought will be to wonder whether it's real or if the AI's prompt was "beautiful video of 15 different moth species flapping their wings, professional photography, 8k, trending on Twitter".
Will this tweet hold up? (The part about AI video generation, not about whether we'll all be dead in 2-4 years.) Giving max date range to be generous.
This market resolves YES if at close (end of 2026) my subjective perception is that this was a good take--e.g., AI-generated video really is that good--and NO if it seems like Eliezer was importantly wrong about something, e.g., AI-generated video still sucks, or still couldn't be the cause for serious doubt about whether some random moth footage was made with a camera or not.
I reserve the right to resolve to an early YES if it turns out Eliezer was obviously correct before the close date. I won't dock points if he ends up having been too conservative, e.g., a new model comes out in 6 months with perfect video generation capabilities.
I guess this market resolves N/A if we all die, but, well, y'know.
Betting policy: I will not bet in this market (any more than I already have, and I've long sold all my shares).
Apparently this is AI. I didn't think twice about it the first time I saw:
seems that vidgen has begun to cross a threshold
Before too long we'll have real time, interactive versions where one specify a kind of location to drop in to, then can walk about, talk to inhabitants, prompt a storyline, prompt items into existence, etc.
The version of Odyssey that's coming out in a couple weeks is an early version
@jim This is starting to get into the range where I myself would ask the market if it was time to call it.
@jim As a NO holder I'm happy resolving this YES on tweets like this. The quality falls short of the bar set by the moth video but it's close enough that it induces heavy skepticism.
EDIT: Veo really is a huge leap in capabilities.
This feels like an important threshold: (despite not being AI-generated)
https://x.com/joodalooped/status/1925255543029211559
This question is way too high because of a resolution detail people seem to be overlooking. I pointed it out around a year ago:
As I understand it, this market only resolves YES if there's realistic video generation AND no mechanism in place to reliably tell apart AI-generated from real video on Twitter.
I think that conditioning on realistic video, there's like at least a 20% chance civilization is forced to find a way to mark videos on Twitter as either real or AI-generated, so this question should be trading at most around 75%.
This question is not directly measuring AI video generation. Instead, it's measuring how much doubt people will feel when they look at a video on twitter. And there are ways to make the amount of doubt low!
If this is not true, @journcy or @mods should elaborate.
@Nikola It's crazy how much free mana from AI over-optimists there is constantly, including from just not properly reading the resolution criteria. And I say this as someone with fairly short timelines. But I can't invest in correctional pessimism properly, because I'm trying to free up mana to bet in other over-optimistic markets. XD
@Nikola I suspect this is not true for two reasons:
This did not happen with photoshop, even when sites like Pinterest were flooded with photos that claimed to be real, and were not.
In order for it to impact this market, the indicator would have to be crystal clear -- it would have to proceed/accompany your "first thought" about the video. I'm not sure that Community Notes clears this bar, and we are not reliably seeing even Community Notes on AI produced media.
This +2 years pretty much clinches it for me
Even if AI can make something like that moth video this shouldn't resolve YES... there are many, many types of videos that are really popular online that AI can't make. Could use some clarification from @journcy on how they're thinking about it (i.e. is it more about copying the moth video or copying "most" types of online video) but if we take their criteria seriously YES is way overvalued
@ChrisRigas I think their criteria is very clear:
> This market resolves YES if at close (end of 2026) my subjective perception is that this was a good take--e.g., AI-generated video really is that good--and NO if it seems like Eliezer was importantly wrong about something, e.g., AI-generated video still sucks, or still couldn't be the cause for serious doubt about whether some random moth footage was made with a camera or not.
It's clearly not about copying the moth video specifically, and not about being able to copy literally every kind of video you'd find online, but about AI being able to create short videos of the same category as the moth video, in a way that is hard to distinguish from real videos even with a closer look, such that there's a reasonable doubt about whether any particular video like that is AI generated.
The key phrase here is "AI generated video really is that good". If that condition is met, then this question should resolve yes, in my interpretation. And I think Veo 2 is there - I'm confident that once Veo 2 is released to the public, there will be no doubt that this question will resolve YES.
@MetallicDragon From their comment:
To me, this tweet will have stood the test of time if it is in some sense embedded in the zeitgeist that a level of skepticism is warranted for essentially any video you see online. (With obvious caveats about things you know existed prior to the 2020s, etc.)
how do you get from there to "clearly not about being able to copy literally every kind of video you'd find online"?
it's not about there being a couple edge cases, but like the majority of types of online video right now could not remotely be made with AI
@ChrisRigas That quote does seem to conflict with the text I quoted. I hold the text of original question as holding more weight than that comment. There is zero indication in the original question that AI would need to be able to generate any arbitrary internet video. Rather, the way I read it, it only needs to apply to videos in roughly the same category as the moth video, in a way that causes doubt in a significant portion of the population when they see such a video.
I think most people would read the question the same way. If the asker really did mean that it would need to apply to any arbitrary internet video (including long-form coherent scripted content with matching audio), that's a hugely important detail to be left out of the original question and only mention it in a comment.