OpenAI's original definition for AGI is as follows:
"By AGI, we mean highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work."
This is the definition used for the purposes of evaluating this prediction unless there's a change proposed by the board (or another governing body of OpenAI with such permissions as to modify the charter) of OpenAI to this definition.
By "Hint at", it is meant that instead of a direct claim, OpenAI takes actions that were otherwise reserved for the special case of having achieved AGI. Since it is not possible to define something as intuitive as "hint at" apriori, I will judge that part subjectively, and am not going to trade in this market to avoid a conflict of interest.
"Hint at" could be understood as a weak claim to AGI by OpenAI's official actions or statements.
Here is a diagram illustrating the governance structure of OpenAI:
The following is a quote from the original post by OpenAI, OpenAI's structure:
Fifth, the board determines when we've attained AGI. Again, by AGI we mean a highly autonomous system that outperforms humans at most economically valuable work. Such a system is excluded from IP licenses and other commercial terms with Microsoft, which only apply to pre-AGI technology.
An action that would "hint at" OpenAI achieving AGI would be the exclusion of a specific state of the art AI system from IP licenses and other commercial terms with Microsoft while their partnership with Microsoft remains more or less the same structurally (although the composition might change).
Same market for a longer time-frame is below:
1,000
3.00Would the stuff about strawberries etc have counted positively for this in 2024?
(We now know the outcome was lackluster, but the hype was significant)
It would make sense to have the @mods who will resolve this question share their current thinking here.
Right now we're betting on how some mod will interpret how the creator and/or the (majority of?) traders interpreted the market. Or would have interpreted the market, had he/they known about the change in the agreement between OpenAI and Microsoft.
My take: This was supposed to be a proxy for "Does OpenAI think it created AGI", by using their agreement with Microsoft as a proxy. That agreement changed in a substantial way and I suppose this market would not exist in the alternative world where the current OpenAI-Microsoft agreement holds.
"We are now confident we know how to build AGI as we have traditionally understood it. We believe that, in 2025, we may see the first AI agents “join the workforce” and materially change the output of companies. We continue to believe that iteratively putting great tools in the hands of people leads to great, broadly-distributed outcomes."
https://blog.samaltman.com
@CryptoNeoLiberalist I had no idea Carter was involved with OpenAI. Can you post a link with more info? Thanks
@Bayesian I bet no before, but I gotta admit it’s super cool we’re at the point where it’s open to interpretation or not if we’re gonna hit AGI. Would have imagined that would have taken a few more years.
"Hint at" has a very particular meaning in this market - read the description. It's still quite unclear, but as I understand it, the intent is to capture OpenAI directly or indirectly invoking the AGI clause in their charter and/or contract with Microsoft
@jack @Simon74fe having the creator of an AGI benchmark imply that there's a CHANCE that your model is AGI seems like a borderline hint, tbh, but I agree this might not yet meet the criteria described by the creator.
I also personally do not think this is AGI by any means, lol
@SirSalty There's a pretty good argument that OpenAI's behaviour already qualifies as "hinting" it has AGI.
@SirSalty I don't think they will do this before completing their migration to a new corporate structure
@SirSalty but that should obviously not count right? the article itself suggests that "hint at AGI" may be used not because AGI has been achieved but because some execs want to get out of a contract. In the latter case, this market should, imo, clearly not resolve true.
sigh. surprise surprise. the ambiguous clause i didn't like allows for this market to resolve true, even if consensus is OpenAI did not achieve AGI and perhaps only tried to get out of a contract.
does anyone know how to reach arbiters for markets of deleted accounts? for firstuserhere i was pretty confident they were interested in actual AGI, and wouldn't resolve true / update the hint at clause. for arbiters i have no clue how literal they'll take the resolution criteria.