Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

garymarcus.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 242 posts

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

#51

Post by ceejayoz »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #46
ipython wrote: post #25

If we have concerns about unregulated power of AI systems, not to worry - the US is set to ban regulations on “artificial intelligence systems or models” for ten years if the budget bill that just passed the house is enacted. Attempts at submitting it as a separate submission just get flagged - so I’ll link to it here. See pages 292-294: https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr1/BILLS-119hr1rh.pdf

Right, because more regulation makes things so much better. I’d rather have unrestricted AI than moated regulatory capture paid for by the largest existing players.

This is "more regulation" on the states (from the "states' rights" party, no less), and concentrates the potential for regulatory capture into the largest player, the Feds. Who just accepted a $400M gift from Qatar and have a Trump cryptocurrency that gets you access to the President.

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

#52

Post by Aurornis »

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.

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

#53

Post by rixed »

ipython wrote: post #25

If we have concerns about unregulated power of AI systems, not to worry - the US is set to ban regulations on “artificial intelligence systems or models” for ten years if the budget bill that just passed the house is enacted. Attempts at submitting it as a separate submission just get flagged - so I’ll link to it here. See pages 292-294: https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hr1/BILLS-119hr1rh.pdf

  « (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act. »
Does it actually make sense to pass a law that restrict future laws? Oh got it, that's federal state preventing any state passing their own laws on that topic.

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

#54

Post by kokanee »

> Everyone else either performs a charade of doing their job—leaders still leading, managers still managing—or relaxes and collects an incredibly luxurious universal basic income.

For me, this was the most difficult part to believe. I don't see any reason to think that the U.S. leadership (public and private) is incentivized to spend resources to placate the masses. They will invest in protecting themselves from the masses, and obstructing levers of power that threaten them, but the idea that economic disparities will shrink under explosive power consolidation is counterintuitive.

I also worry about the economics of UBI in general. If everyone in the economy has the exact same resources, doesn't the value of those resources instantly drop to the lowest common denominator; the minimum required to survive?

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

#55

Post by thatguysaguy »

radicalcentrist wrote: post #42
thatguysaguy wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people do actually have end of the world bets out but you have to structure it differently. What you do is the person who thinks the world will end is paid cash right now, and then in N years when the world hasn't ended they have to pay back some multiple of the amount the original amount.

I still don't get how this is supposed to work. So let's say I give you a million dollars right now, with the expectation that I get $10M back in 10 years when the world hasn't ended. You obviously wanted the money up front because you're going to live it up while the world's still spinning. So how am I getting my payout after you've spent it all on hookers and blow?

Yeah I wouldn't make a deal like this with someone who is operating in bad faith... The cases I've seen of this are between public intellectuals with relatively modest amounts of money.

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

#57

Post by mattlondon »

I think the big thing that people never mention is, where will these evil AIs escape to?

Another huge data center with squillions of GPUs and coolers and all the rest is the only option. It's not like it is going to be in our TV remotes or floating about in the air.

They need huge compute, so I think the risk of an escaping AI is basically very close to zero, and if we have a "rogue" AI we can literally pull the plug.

To me the more real risk is creeping integration and reliance in everyday life until things become "too big to fail" so we can't pull the plug even if we wanted to (and there are interesting thoughts about humanoid robots getting deployed widely and what happens with all that).

But I would imagine if it really became a genuine existential threat we'd have to just do it and suffer the consequences of reverting to circa 2020 life styles.

But hey I feel slightly better about my employment prospects now :)

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

#58

Post by pinkmuffinere »

Aurornis wrote: post #52

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 b…

Ya, multiple failed predictions is an indicator of systemically bad predictors imo. That said, Scott Alexander usually does serious analysis instead of handwavey hype, so I tend to believe him more than many others in the space.

My somewhat native take is that we’re still close to peak hype, AI will under deliver on the inflated expectations, and we’ll head into another “winter”. This pattern has repeated multiple times, so I think it’s fairly likely based on that alone. Real progress is made during each cycle, i think humans are just bad at containing excitement

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

#59

Post by alwa »

OgsyedIE wrote: post #33
rakete wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I heard about that one, but didn't realize it is part of that "big beautiful tax bill"? Kind of crazy. So is this like free-for-all now for anything AI related? Can I can participate by making my own LLM with pirated stuff now? Or are only the big guys allowed to break the law? Asking for a friend.

The law doesn't matter, since the bill also prohibits all judges in the USA, every single one, from enforcing almost all kinds of injunctions or contempt penalties. (§70302, p.562)

> 70302. Restriction of funds No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section.

Doesn't that just require that the party seeking the injunction or order has to post a bond as security?

Post reply on HN