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

Post by amarcheschi » Thu, May 22, 2025, 9:14 PM UTC

HDThoreaun wrote: post #135

amarcheschi wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Post by sigmaisaletter » Thu, May 22, 2025, 9:16 PM UTC

bpodgursky wrote: post #89

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…

Do you feel that you are shifting goalposts a bit when quibbling over whether AI will kill everyone in 2030 or 2035? As of 10 years ago, the entire conversation would have seemed ridiculous. Now we're talking about single digit timeline differences to the singularity or extinction. Come on man.

Post by HDThoreaun » Thu, May 22, 2025, 9:19 PM UTC

amarcheschi wrote: post #141

HDThoreaun wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Post by goatlover » Thu, May 22, 2025, 9:26 PM UTC

skeeter2020 wrote: post #116

raffael_de wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. How about such an AI will not just incentivize key personnel to not pull the plug but to protect it? Such an AI will scheme a coordinated attack at the backbones of our financial system and electric networks. It just needs a threshold number of people on its side…

replace AI with trucks and you've written Maximum Overdrive.

Post by goatlover » Thu, May 22, 2025, 9:35 PM UTC

lakeeffect wrote: post #67

KaiserPro wrote: post #21

Its a shame that your standard futurologist always the most fancyful. Talks of exponentials unabated by physics or social problems. As soon as AI starts to "properly" affect the economy, it will cause huge unemployment. Most of the financial world is based on an economy with people spending cash. If they are unemployed, there is no cash. Financing works because banks "print" money, that is, they make up money and loa…

We really need to establish a universal basic income before jobs are replaced. Something like two thousand a month. And a dollar for dollar earned income credit with the credit phasing out with at a hundred grand. To pay for it the tax code uses GAAP depreciation and a minimum tax of 15% GAAP financial statement income. This would work toward solving the real estate problem of private equity buying up all the houses…