[gensym]

> AI 2027 is unmitigated bullshit, but with graphs, so people think there is a science to it.

AI 2027 is classic Rationalist/LessWrong/AI Doomer Motte-Bailey - it's a science fiction story that pretends to be rigorous and predictive but in such a way that when you point out it's neither, the authors can fall back to "it's just a story".

At first I was surprised at how much traction this thing got, but this is the type of argument that community has been refining for decades and this point, and it's pretty effective on people who lack the antibodies for it.

[mitthrowaway2]

I'm very much an AI doomer myself, and even I don't think AI 2027 holds water. I find myself quite confused about what its proponents (including Scott Alexander) are even expecting to get from the project, because it seems to me like the median result will be a big loss of AI-doomer credibilty in 2028 when the talking point shifts to "but it's a long tailed prediction!"

[hollerith]

Same here. I ask the reader not to react to AI 2027 by dismissing the possibility that it is quite dangerous to let the AI labs continue with their labbing.

[098799]

Because if we're unlucky, Scott will think in the final seconds of his life as he watches the world burn "I could have tried harder and worried less about my reputation".

[heavyset_go]

Scott will just post a ten thousand word article to deflect and his audience will reorient themselves like they always do.

[stego-tech]

It got traction because it supported everyone’s position in some way:

* Pro-safety folks could point at it and say this is why AI development should slow down or stop

* LLM-doomer folks (disclaimer: it me) can point at it and mock its pie-in-the-sky charts and milestones, as well as its handwashing of any actual issues LLMs have at present, or even just mock the persistent BS nonsense of “AI will eliminate jobs but the economy [built atop consumer spending] will grow exponentially forever so it’ll be fine” that’s so often spewed like sewage

* AI boosters and accelerationists can point to it as why we should speed ahead even faster, because you see, everyone will likely be fine in the end and you can totes trust us to slow down and behave safely at the right moment, swearsies

Good fiction always tickles the brain across multiple positions and knowledge domains, and AI 2027 was no different. It’s a parable warning about the extreme dangers of AI, but fails to mention how immediate they are (such as already being deployed to Kamikaze drones) and ultimately wraps it all up as akin to a coin toss between an American or Chinese Empire. It makes a lot of assumptions to sell its particular narrative, to serve its own agenda.

[heavyset_go]

It got traction because it hyped AI companies' products to a comical level. It's simply great marketing.

[tux3]

It's the other way around entirely: the story is the unrigorous bailey, when confronted they fall back to the actual research behind it

And you can certainly criticize the research, but you've got the motte and the bailey backwards

[shehzade]

Hey tux3, sorry to post off topic, but is there any chance I could DM you on Discord/Signal/Reddit/etc…?

You had a super interesting comment a while back about CrowdStrike RE that I was really hoping I could ask you about further!

Discord: shehzade1618 Reddit: u/shehzade16180 Signal: shehzade.1618