For instance, if the AI 2027 critique post title was “AI 2027′s Graphs Are Made Up And Unjustified” this would feel to me much better than something only about status like “AI 2027′s Timeline Forecasts Are Bad”.
But then that wouldn’t be an accurate description of what titotal’s post is about.
“AI 2027′s authors’ arguments for superexponential growth curves are conceptually flawed, and their exponential model is neither exponential nor well-justified, and their graphs are made up and unjustified, and their projections don’t take into account many important variables, and benchmark+gaps is a worse model than the simplified one [for technical reasons], and these kinds of forecasts should be viewed with inherent skepticism for the following reasons” would be a proper summary of what is going on… but obviously it’s not suitable as a title.
I mean… the reason the AI 2027 critique isn’t titled “AI 2027′s Graphs Are Made Up And Unjustified” is obviously because the critique is about so much more than just some graphs on ACX and Twitter, right? That’s just one small part of the criticism, regardless of how much post-publication public discourse has focused on that one aspect.
The post is ultimately about why the timeline forecasts are (according to the author) bad, so it seems quite hard to title it something direct and concrete when it’s a compilation of many separate issues titotal has with AI 2027.
But then that wouldn’t be an accurate description of what titotal’s post is about.
“AI 2027′s authors’ arguments for superexponential growth curves are conceptually flawed, and their exponential model is neither exponential nor well-justified, and their graphs are made up and unjustified, and their projections don’t take into account many important variables, and benchmark+gaps is a worse model than the simplified one [for technical reasons], and these kinds of forecasts should be viewed with inherent skepticism for the following reasons” would be a proper summary of what is going on… but obviously it’s not suitable as a title.
I mean… the reason the AI 2027 critique isn’t titled “AI 2027′s Graphs Are Made Up And Unjustified” is obviously because the critique is about so much more than just some graphs on ACX and Twitter, right? That’s just one small part of the criticism, regardless of how much post-publication public discourse has focused on that one aspect.
The post is ultimately about why the timeline forecasts are (according to the author) bad, so it seems quite hard to title it something direct and concrete when it’s a compilation of many separate issues titotal has with AI 2027.