I agree that some people talking about slow takeoff mean something stronger (e.g. “no singularity ever”), but I think that’s an unusual position inside our crowd (and even an unusual position amongst thoughtful ML researchers), and it’s not e.g. Robin’s view (who I take as a central example of a slow takeoff proponent).
Cool. It’s an update to my models to think explicitly in terms of the behavior of the Pareto boundary, as opposed to in terms of the behavior of some more nebulous “the current best AI.” So thanks for that.
It’s not e.g. Robin’s view (who I take as a central example of a slow takeoff proponent).
Would you predict Robin to have any major disagreements with the view expressed in your write-up?
I found myself more convinced by this presentation of the “slow” view than I usually have been by Robin’s side of the FOOM debate, but nothing is jumping out to me as obviously different. (So I’m not sure if this is the same view, just presented in a different style and/or with different arguments, or whether it’s a different view.)
Robin makes a lot of more detailed claims (e.g. about things being messy and having lots of parts) that are irrelevant to this particular conclusion. I disagree with many of the more detailed claims, and think they distract from the strongest part of the argument in this case.
That’s an accurate summary of my position.
I agree that some people talking about slow takeoff mean something stronger (e.g. “no singularity ever”), but I think that’s an unusual position inside our crowd (and even an unusual position amongst thoughtful ML researchers), and it’s not e.g. Robin’s view (who I take as a central example of a slow takeoff proponent).
Cool. It’s an update to my models to think explicitly in terms of the behavior of the Pareto boundary, as opposed to in terms of the behavior of some more nebulous “the current best AI.” So thanks for that.
Would you predict Robin to have any major disagreements with the view expressed in your write-up?
I found myself more convinced by this presentation of the “slow” view than I usually have been by Robin’s side of the FOOM debate, but nothing is jumping out to me as obviously different. (So I’m not sure if this is the same view, just presented in a different style and/or with different arguments, or whether it’s a different view.)
Robin makes a lot of more detailed claims (e.g. about things being messy and having lots of parts) that are irrelevant to this particular conclusion. I disagree with many of the more detailed claims, and think they distract from the strongest part of the argument in this case.