You might be interested in these post series I put together, so far just 3 posts in each series.
The series āSkepticism about near-term AGIā is general and tries to be accessible and interesting to a newcomer to these debates, although there may be some technical and inaccessible parts to some of them.
The post ā3 reasons AGI might still be decades awayā by Zershaaneh Qureshi on the 80,000 Hours blog is very quick and accessible, and Iād like to add it to the series, but it hasnāt been published on the EA Forum. I recommend that post too.
The other series āCriticism of specific accounts of imminent AGIā is very much inside baseball and might feel unimportant or inaccessible to newcomers to these debates. Each of the 3 posts is responding to something very specific in the AGI debates, and if you donāt know or care about that very specific thing, then you might not care about those posts. I think they are all excellent and necessary pieces of criticism, itās just weāre really getting into the weeds at that point, so someone who isnāt caught up on the AGI debates might be totally confused. So, Iād recommend the āSkepticism about near-term AGIā series first.
You might be interested in these post series I put together, so far just 3 posts in each series.
The series āSkepticism about near-term AGIā is general and tries to be accessible and interesting to a newcomer to these debates, although there may be some technical and inaccessible parts to some of them.
The post ā3 reasons AGI might still be decades awayā by Zershaaneh Qureshi on the 80,000 Hours blog is very quick and accessible, and Iād like to add it to the series, but it hasnāt been published on the EA Forum. I recommend that post too.
The other series āCriticism of specific accounts of imminent AGIā is very much inside baseball and might feel unimportant or inaccessible to newcomers to these debates. Each of the 3 posts is responding to something very specific in the AGI debates, and if you donāt know or care about that very specific thing, then you might not care about those posts. I think they are all excellent and necessary pieces of criticism, itās just weāre really getting into the weeds at that point, so someone who isnāt caught up on the AGI debates might be totally confused. So, Iād recommend the āSkepticism about near-term AGIā series first.