←back to thread

AI 2027

(ai-2027.com)
949 points Tenoke | 2 comments | 03 Apr 25 16:13 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
beklein ◴[03 Apr 25 17:12 UTC] No.43572674[source]▶
Older and related article from one of the authors titled "What 2026 looks like", that is holding up very well against time. Written in mid 2021 (pre ChatGPT)

https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/6Xgy6CAf2jqHhynHL/what-...

//edit: remove the referral tags from URL

replies(9): >>43572850 #>>43572964 #>>43573185 #>>43573413 #>>43573523 #>>43575079 #>>43575122 #>>43575183 #>>43575630 #
samth ◴[03 Apr 25 20:38 UTC] No.43575079[source]▶
I think it's not holding up that well outside of predictions about AI research itself. In particular, he makes a lot of predictions about AI impact on persuasion, propaganda, the information environment, etc that have not happened.
replies(3): >>43575115 #>>43576211 #>>43576679 #
1. madethisnow ◴[03 Apr 25 20:40 UTC] No.43575115[source]▶
something you can't know
replies(1): >>43575906 #
2. elicksaur ◴[03 Apr 25 21:50 UTC] No.43575906[source]▶
This doesn’t seem like a great way to reason about the predictions.

For something like this, saying “There is no evidence showing it” is a good enough refutation.

Counterpointing that “Well, there could be a lot of this going on, but it is in secret.” - that could be a justification for any kooky theory out there. Bigfoot, UFOs, ghosts. Maybe AI has already replaced all of us and we’re Cylons. Something we couldn’t know.

The predictions are specific enough that they are falsifiable, so they should stand or fall based on the clear material evidence supporting or contradicting them.