This question resolves to YES if during at least one of the main (non-VP) 2024 general presidential election debates in the United States, the moderator asks at least two separate questions directly related to artificial intelligence, such as the potential for job losses due to AI automation, or existential risk from AI. This question also resolves to YES if AI is otherwise brought up by a candidate in the context of a question unrelated to AI and ALL candidates talk about AI at least once during the same debate, with at least one of the candidates saying "AI", "artificial intelligence", "robots" or a close synonym at least three separate times, at least five seconds apart, during the same debate. Otherwise, this question resolves to NO.
Asking "at least two separate questions" means that the moderator must pose two semantically distinct and individual queries, each intended to elicit a unique response, specifically about artificial intelligence. In other words, simply repeating the same question doesn't count as two separate questions, even if the question is asked twice, first to one candidate, and then a second time to the other candidate. Moreover, asking two distinct questions without waiting for the answer to the first one counts as two separate questions for the purpose of this question. For example, a clear positive instance would be asking first, "How do you plan to manage the existential risks from AI?" and then later asking, "What are your proposals to mitigate job loss due to automation from AI?" These are two separate questions because they cover different facets of artificial intelligence—existential risk and employment. A clear negative example would be if the moderator simply asked, "How do you plan to manage the existential risks from AI?" to one candidate, and then later said "Same question to you" to the other candidate. Even though the question is asked twice, it's not considered two "separate" questions because it's a repetition of the same query.
When it comes to questions related to automation and job losses, the key factor that determines whether the question is "directly related to artificial intelligence" is whether the moderator mentions AI technologies or AI companies, such as ChatGPT, OpenAI, generative AI, or neural networks; any question will automatically qualify if the moderator says the word "AI" or "artificial intelligence" in the question. General questions about automation or job losses that don't clearly link back to AI won't be considered "directly related to artificial intelligence". For example, the following questions would NOT count as being directly related to artificial intelligence:
"How will your administration address the growing issue of job losses due to technological advances?" — Too broad; doesn't specify AI.
"What are your plans for helping workers displaced by automation?" — Not specific to AI; includes all automation.
If there are no 2024 general presidential election debates, this question resolves to N/A.
@Simon74fe So melodramatic. POTUS will hardly matter and future generations won’t be looking at debate transcripts.
@NicoDelon I agree that they probably won't look at the transcripts, but I like the melodrama.
There is some chance that POTUS will actually make a difference by deciding how AI will be regulated in the future
(e.g. https://manifold.markets/ManifoldPolitics/if-harris-is-elected-will-there-be-uve99bjbbo)
Some more free money for the NOs here. https://manifold.markets/Joshua/what-is-the-max-number-of-separate
Some free money for the NOs here. https://manifold.markets/Joshua/exactly-how-many-separate-questions
@NicoDelon To be fair, if this had been a normal election cycle (defining normal to be not including Donald Trump), the chance would have been higher – I was always leaning no though.
@NicoDelon If Donald Trump said a slur then somebody else might have been the Republican nominee lmao
Might not bubble up to the debate level, but..
"Inside a white-walled conference room, a speaker surveyed hundreds of state lawmakers and policy influencers, asking whether artificial intelligence poses a threat to the elections in their states.
The results were unambiguous: 80% of those who answered a live poll said yes. In a follow-up question, nearly 90% said their state laws weren’t adequate to deter those threats.
It was among the many exchanges on artificial intelligence that dominated sessions at this month’s meeting of the National Conference of State Legislatures, the largest annual gathering of lawmakers, in Louisville."
Does RFK livestreaming alongside the debates count as part of the main debate?
He is a serious candidate that mentioned both AI and crypto in his closing remarks.
Or is the domain of this wager restricted only to the media curated by the deep state?
@ElmerFudd I'm mean that it will probably resolve as no, but I wish it would resolve as yes. That makes me sad.
@Krantz If you want government to solve something, you really don't want it to come up in debates. You want it to be bipartisan and you want it to be solved by some wonks in a backroom.