I think it’s important to hold “AI development research” and “AI timeline prediction-making” as two separate skillsets. Expertise in one doesn’t necessarily imply expertise in the other (though there’s probably some overlap).
OK, that’s true. The problem is, it’s hard to tell if you are better at predicting timelines.
Any good model of the quality of AI dev researcher timeline opinions needs to be able to explain why AI safety was considered a joke by the field for years, and only started to be taken seriously by (some) AI dev researchers after committed advocacy from outsiders.
I think that’s a third issue, not a matter of timeline opinions either.
I think that’s a third issue, not a matter of timeline opinions either.
Seems relevant in that if you surveyed timeline opinions of AI dev researchers 20 years ago, you’d probably get responses ranging from “200 years out” to “AGI? That’s apocalyptic hogwash. Now, if you’d excuse me...”
I don’t know which premise here is more greatly at odds with the real beliefs of AI researchers—that they didn’t worry about AI safety because they didn’t think that AGI would be built, or that there has ever been a time when they thought it would take >200 years to do it.
OK, that’s true. The problem is, it’s hard to tell if you are better at predicting timelines.
I think that’s a third issue, not a matter of timeline opinions either.
Seems relevant in that if you surveyed timeline opinions of AI dev researchers 20 years ago, you’d probably get responses ranging from “200 years out” to “AGI? That’s apocalyptic hogwash. Now, if you’d excuse me...”
I don’t know which premise here is more greatly at odds with the real beliefs of AI researchers—that they didn’t worry about AI safety because they didn’t think that AGI would be built, or that there has ever been a time when they thought it would take >200 years to do it.