Multiple answers can YES. If a term catches on in the real world significantly, you can post links to examples of its use. It can't just be a flash in the pan - it should be a term that has a clear meaning used within some community (academic or normal life, civilians, etc, somewhere in the english speaking world (or non-english but a group which uses this english term could count, too)).
note this has to be a positive term, not a scare term like GMO - "ooh, scary, we genetically selected corn to... be more nutritious, more edible, less bitter... terrifying"... it's been "modified" from its ancestral, barely edible form, round up the usual suspects
anytime by mid 2033 and people can keep adding new ones
I'll nuke ones that I take as not serious or extremely unlikely to catch on
You can add meta but you are at much higher risk of me banning them if I don't think it's productive
@TheAllMemeingEye I'll search on Google trends or something similar and look for a large spike and then some continued usage including in media. It's hard to say now how big it needs to be but in intending to YES new terms which Americans who read popular science books would have heard.
I'm open to improving this criteria but I don't want to limit it to single points like any dictionary or a single journal
@TimothyJohnson5c16 It's possible there might be a degree of rebranding/euphemism if that term becomes taboo, but yeah I think even the highest here shouldn't be above 5-10%
@BrunoParga thanks for the opinion. Claude Opus came up with the name. I found it interesting to have it evaluated by the betting market.
@jim well, it would be important if AGI wasn't so close, but even given that it's an interesting/fun question