"Conditional on no government or self-imposed slowdown and precluding catastrophes, in which year will artificial superintelligence (ASI), an AI system that is much better than the best human at every cognitive task, be achieved? Our aggregate estimate lies at 2028 to 2050, with a median of medians of 2039."
Would it be better to have a more concrete operationalisation of ASI, like the one used by the AI Futures' team (gap between ASI and the best humans more than 2 times greater than the gap between the best humans and median professionals, at virtually all cognitive tasks)?
Possibly! One could also compare artificial systems against companies, countries and other teams of humans. But for a periodical like this one I don't think it makes that much sense to sweat the operationalization much.
Hi, a heads up that there is a mistake in your post in your calculation, assuming that $150 will be the price of oil if Trump escalates and $80, if he does not the current price would actually imply and escalation risk of 43%, not 13%. Not sure what went wrong here, unless there is a typing error.
Thanks for the update.
"Conditional on no government or self-imposed slowdown and precluding catastrophes, in which year will artificial superintelligence (ASI), an AI system that is much better than the best human at every cognitive task, be achieved? Our aggregate estimate lies at 2028 to 2050, with a median of medians of 2039."
Would it be better to have a more concrete operationalisation of ASI, like the one used by the AI Futures' team (gap between ASI and the best humans more than 2 times greater than the gap between the best humans and median professionals, at virtually all cognitive tasks)?
Possibly! One could also compare artificial systems against companies, countries and other teams of humans. But for a periodical like this one I don't think it makes that much sense to sweat the operationalization much.
Hi, a heads up that there is a mistake in your post in your calculation, assuming that $150 will be the price of oil if Trump escalates and $80, if he does not the current price would actually imply and escalation risk of 43%, not 13%. Not sure what went wrong here, unless there is a typing error.
Whoops, thanks, fixed!