You wouldn’t put p(SC in 2025) at 5.8% if we were currently at fifteen nanoseconds. Changing the initial conditions a lot seems to break the model.
I think interpreting this is a bit more complicated than it seems. In some conditions I think I would actually do that. It depends on how long the trend had been going. It’s reasonable to extrapolate a trend about as far as it’s been going for, I think. All of this is a bit weird because it’s not possible to have time horizons less than a second or so anyway, by definition, because the way the horizon length is computed is by comparing to how long it takes humans to do a task. Or, what would those tasks even look like?
If the current doubling time is T, and each subsequent doubling takes 10% less time, then you have infinite doublings (i.e. singularity) by time 10T. So with T = 4.5 months you get singularity by 45 months. This is completely insensitive to the initial conditions or to the trend in changes-in-doubling-time (unless the number “10%” was chosen based on trend extrapolation, but that doesn’t seem to be the case).
(In practice the superexponential model predicts singularity even sooner than 45 months, because of the additional effect from automated AI R&D.)
I think interpreting this is a bit more complicated than it seems. In some conditions I think I would actually do that. It depends on how long the trend had been going. It’s reasonable to extrapolate a trend about as far as it’s been going for, I think. All of this is a bit weird because it’s not possible to have time horizons less than a second or so anyway, by definition, because the way the horizon length is computed is by comparing to how long it takes humans to do a task. Or, what would those tasks even look like?
But it isn’t trend extrapolation?
If the current doubling time is T, and each subsequent doubling takes 10% less time, then you have infinite doublings (i.e. singularity) by time 10T. So with T = 4.5 months you get singularity by 45 months. This is completely insensitive to the initial conditions or to the trend in changes-in-doubling-time (unless the number “10%” was chosen based on trend extrapolation, but that doesn’t seem to be the case).
(In practice the superexponential model predicts singularity even sooner than 45 months, because of the additional effect from automated AI R&D.)