Resolves in 2050, based on whether:
The American obesity epidemic gets better by 2050
This is attributable partly to changes made by or during the Trump & RFK Jr. era
Resolves NO if:
It's entirely due to changes unrelated to Trump & RFK Jr's leadership (e.g. it comes from Ozempic / semaglutide)
It's due to changes against the actual actions and directives of Trump & RFK Jr.
Obesity epidemic does not get better (smaller % obese)
If on average, the accepted impact of their actions overall have made it worse, despite it getting better for some other reason (e.g. Ozempic)
In case of conflict between the two, it will lean towards RFK Jr.'s impact, unless one's actions were overwhelmingly more consequential.
Update 2025-02-14 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Ambiguous Outcome Resolution:
If the available evidence does not lead to a clear determination regarding the influence of Trump & RFK Jr.'s actions, the market will be resolved as N/A.
Update 2025-04-08 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Causal Attribution for Economic Factors:
The market will resolve YES if the observed improvement in the obesity epidemic is caused by the actions of Trump & RFK Jr., even in cases where economic factors (such as a depression) are the immediate mechanism.
This clarification reinforces that the decisive criterion is whether their actions are the direct cause of the improvement.
Update 2025-04-08 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Early Term Assessment:
The market will resolve to NO if obesity levels clearly do not decrease by the end of Trump's term.
If obesity levels improve by that time, further evaluation will be needed to determine whether such improvement is directly attributable to the actions of Trump & RFK Jr.
1,000
3.00What if obesity decreases due to economic factors (e.g. a great economic depression?) Rather than health changes?
@barbarous then this market would probably align with economic depression aspects more than health measures 🤷♂️
@barbarous maybe i should use different words.
The health measure obesity is what this marker reflects.
But economic interventions might have larger impacts here than health interventions is what I'm trying to phrase here.
@GraemeStuart Resolves shortly to NO if obesity clearly does not decrease at end of Trump's term. If obesity does improve, may need to wait longer to see why.
@barbarous changes made by RFK Jr are likely to be long term, but 2050 seems unfair if resolving to NO happens sooner. Perhaps 2030 is more reasonable. What are current data showing and what kind of shift would be needed in either direction to resolve?
@GraemeStuart Fair, I think it would resolve sooner than that. I just wanted to give enough time for the smoke to clear and to really see what the impacts were objectively. Don't think 2-4 years is enough for that
@WilliamGunn Feel free to suggest some, that is not the point of the bet.
I don't know yet who or what org to delegate this to, as they will also face the same problem of being pro or anti-RFK partisan, and making the bet about that.
In my view, there will be "neutral" AI oracles by 2050. So maybe whatever the most advanced and objective model would decide. I think there is a bit of time to figure that out, but suggestions are welcome.
@barbarous Normally what you expect is for the scientific community to study interventions and their effects. Something tells me that isn't going to happen here, and if not, we won't have an answer. Your AGI God will not save you.