The expectation is that there will be no widely agreed upon answer/definition; and also that Wikipedia will not be definite on the subject - note that it currently states "There is debate on the exact definition of AGI, and regarding whether modern large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are early yet incomplete forms of AGI". Resolution seems very subjective, then?

@Zozo001CoN Possibly I'll be resolving to poll in 2030 or something, but my guess is that Wikipedia will present us a pretty strong default after the fact.

"The first true AGI is widely considered to be--"

@MichaelWheatley as my top comment stated, I do not expect such definiteness from Wikipedia, nor the "widely considered" part occurring before long after the fact (if ever). Then again, I consider practically impossible for true AGI to occur by 2030, so this is somewhat moot.

Still I would like to see a clearer resolution criteria before committing to a bet. When/if claims of reaching AGI emerge, there may well be competing ones simultaneously! Not to mention that the likes of Altman will make hints (taken as gospel by many AI researchers, possibly to the point of reaching consensus) before actual facts - would those count as indicators, retroactively?

How does this resolve if some labs come together when they are near AGI, to collaborate on its creation, or something along those lines?

@TheBayesian I guess they both resolve to 50%

Meta underpriced at 5% imo

OpenAI unless 🍎 is a psy-op, and then @Mira . Certainly Google's not going to do it.

Why not add an "open source" category here?

@SteveSokolowski This is an old market without the ability to add new options. There's an "Other", though.

"Other US source" here resolves to any US-based company? Just as a random couple examples, IBM or Keen Technologies?

@DanMan314 That's the intent, yes. I'm using broad phrasing so as to also encompass U.S. government efforts.