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

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.

The other writings from Scott Alexander on scientific racism are also another good point imho

What specifically would you highlight as being particularly egregious or wrong?

As a general rule, "it's icky" doesn't make something false.

And it doesn't make it true either

Human biodiversity theories are a bunch of dogwhistles for racism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Biodiversity_Institute

And his blog's survey reports a lot of users actually believing in those theories https://reflectivealtruism.com/2024/12/27/human-biodiversity...

(I wasn't referring to this Ai 2027 in specific)

Try steel manning in order to effectively persuade. This comment does not address the argument being made it just calls a field of study icky. The unfortunate reality is that shouting down questions like this only empowers the racist HBI people who are effectively leeches

Scott effectively defended Lynn study on iq here https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-to-stop-worrying-and-le...

Citing another blog post that defends it, while conveniently ignoring every other point being made by researchers https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations

What is the point that they have?