←back to thread

The "AI 2027" Scenario: How realistic is it?

(garymarcus.substack.com)
129 points NotInOurNames | 4 comments | 22 May 25 17:37 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Aurornis ◴[22 May 25 19:10 UTC] No.44065615[source]▶
Some useful context from Scott Alexander's blog reveals that the authors don't actually believe the 2027 target:

> Do we really think things will move this fast? Sort of no - between the beginning of the project last summer and the present, Daniel’s median for the intelligence explosion shifted from 2027 to 2028. We keep the scenario centered around 2027 because it’s still his modal prediction (and because it would be annoying to change). Other members of the team (including me) have medians later in the 2020s or early 2030s, and also think automation will progress more slowly. So maybe think of this as a vision of what an 80th percentile fast scenario looks like - not our precise median, but also not something we feel safe ruling out.

They went from "this represents roughly our median guess" in the website to "maybe think of it as an 80th percentile version of the fast scenario that we don't feel safe ruling out" in followup discussions.

Claiming that one reason they didn't change the website was because it would be "annoying" to change the date is a good barometer for how seriously anyone should be taking this exercise.

replies(7): >>44065741 #>>44065924 #>>44066032 #>>44066207 #>>44066383 #>>44067813 #>>44068990 #
throw310822 ◴[22 May 25 20:15 UTC] No.44066383[source]▶
Yes and no, is it actually important if it's 2027 or 28 or 2032? The scenario is such that a difference of a couple of years is basically irrelevant.
replies(1): >>44067712 #
Jensson ◴[22 May 25 22:11 UTC] No.44067712[source]▶
> The scenario is such that a difference of a couple of years is basically irrelevant.

2 years left and 7 years left is a massive difference, it is so much easier to deal with things 7 years in the future especially since its easier to see as we get closer.

replies(1): >>44067793 #
1. lm28469 ◴[22 May 25 22:22 UTC] No.44067793[source]▶
Yeah for example we had decades to tackle climate change and we easily over came the problem
replies(1): >>44068912 #
2. Jensson ◴[23 May 25 01:21 UTC] No.44068912[source]▶
Look at military tech 1941 and 1946, its a massive difference. 5 year time difference means a ton when people take it seriously.

Only reason climate change isn't solved is that people don't care enough.

replies(2): >>44069055 #>>44069619 #
3. lostmsu ◴[23 May 25 01:44 UTC] No.44069055[source]▶
> people don't care enough

I think your parent meant exactly this.

4. adrianN ◴[23 May 25 03:31 UTC] No.44069619[source]▶
The reason climate change isn’t solved is that it’s a problem that can’t be solved by technology alone. We already have all the technology we need to decarbonize. We lack the political will to make the necessary investment.