From https://x.com/_ArnaudS_/status/1793209848953233872, expanded to not refer to Eliezer in particular.
Resolves to YES if any statement is made or question asked, by anyone participating in a briefing, that clearly refers to AI existential risk, even if other words are used. Extinction risk, or any form of 'everyone will die' definitely counts. Intent is what matters here.
Merely catastrophic risk does not count.
Disrupting the proceedings does not count, unless this causes a participant to also mention it.
Resolves NO at the deadline if it hasn't happened yet.
1,000
3.004 years is still a long time, but Trump has made meaningful changes to the briefing room, shifting more seats to partisan boosters and banning AP for months for not saying Gulf of America. Now, the GOP is trying to sneak a 10 year ban of state level AI regulations into a budget reconciliation bill. Clearly, anybody trying to anticipate what would please Trump would not ask about AI existential risks.
What are the odds that sometime in the next year or two, Trump admin makes further changes to WH briefing norms? Ends briefings? Makes 90%+ of participants fully partisan? Pre-screens questions? Briefs but disallows questions? Pretty material relative to the 10-15% odds priced here that AI extinction risks wont be mentioned in this specific venue during a time period that is 90% covered by the current presidential term.
@ZviMowshowitz (or, rather, I am not going to resolve this YES until I have confirmation, one way or another)