I did note that the report is not peer reviewed, but I still have no problem treating it as a credible report. Whether it’s peer reviewed or not (it doesn’t matter), it still does not contain what the AI 2027 authors claim/imply it contains (i.e. evidence of AI successes in “Self-improvement for general intelligence”)
I’ll have my full review of AI 2027 finished in a few weeks. It’s clear if you look at the links they provide to “evidence” that they actually have no evidence. They consistently misrepresent research (peer reviewed or not). I showed up here because I also reviewed Yudkowsky and Soares’ book and wanted to talk to the people here about that, but my review wasn’t approved for posting. You can find it in the link at the end of the article above.
I did note that the report is not peer reviewed, but I still have no problem treating it as a credible report. Whether it’s peer reviewed or not (it doesn’t matter), it still does not contain what the AI 2027 authors claim/imply it contains (i.e. evidence of AI successes in “Self-improvement for general intelligence”)
I’ll have my full review of AI 2027 finished in a few weeks. It’s clear if you look at the links they provide to “evidence” that they actually have no evidence. They consistently misrepresent research (peer reviewed or not). I showed up here because I also reviewed Yudkowsky and Soares’ book and wanted to talk to the people here about that, but my review wasn’t approved for posting. You can find it in the link at the end of the article above.