I think Ege is one of the best proponents of longer timelines, and link to that episode in the article.
I don’t put much stock in the forecast of AI researchers the graph is from. I see the skill of forecasting as very different from the skill of being a published AI researcher. A lot of their forecasts also seem inconsistent. A bit more discussion here: https://80000hours.org/2025/03/when-do-experts-expect-agi-to-arrive/
Financially, I’m already heavily exposed to short AI timelines via my investments.
I don’t put much stock in the forecast of AI researchers the graph is from. I see the skill of forecasting as very different from the skill of being a published AI researcher.
Then what was the point of quoting Sam Altman, Dario Amodei, and Demis Hassabis’ timelines at the beginning of your article?
The section of the post “When do the ‘experts’ expect AGI to arrive?” suffers from a similar problem: downplaying expert opinion when it challenges the thesis and playing up expert opinion when it supports the thesis. What is the content and structure of this argument? It just feels like a restatement of your personal opinion.
I also wish people would stop citing Metaculus for anything. Metaculus is not a real prediction market. You can’t make money on Metaculus. You might as well just survey people on r/singularity.
I think Ege is one of the best proponents of longer timelines, and link to that episode in the article.
I don’t put much stock in the forecast of AI researchers the graph is from. I see the skill of forecasting as very different from the skill of being a published AI researcher. A lot of their forecasts also seem inconsistent. A bit more discussion here: https://80000hours.org/2025/03/when-do-experts-expect-agi-to-arrive/
Financially, I’m already heavily exposed to short AI timelines via my investments.
Then what was the point of quoting Sam Altman, Dario Amodei, and Demis Hassabis’ timelines at the beginning of your article?
The section of the post “When do the ‘experts’ expect AGI to arrive?” suffers from a similar problem: downplaying expert opinion when it challenges the thesis and playing up expert opinion when it supports the thesis. What is the content and structure of this argument? It just feels like a restatement of your personal opinion.
I also wish people would stop citing Metaculus for anything. Metaculus is not a real prediction market. You can’t make money on Metaculus. You might as well just survey people on r/singularity.