FWIW this is the step I disagree with, if I understand what you mean by “try”. See this post.
One way to put this is: what would your preferred state of the timelines discourse be?
In this context, we’re trying to forecast radically unprecedented events, occurring on long subjective time horizons, where we have little reason to expect these intuitive estimates to be honed by empirical feedback. Peer disagreement is also unusually persistent in this domain. So it’s not at all obvious to me that, based on superforecasting track records, we can trust that our intuitions pin down these parameters to a sufficient degree of precision.[1] More on this here (this is not a comprehensive argument for my view, tbc; hoping to post something spelling this out more soon-ish!).
I totally agree that we can’t pin down the parameters to high precision and disagreement will continue to subsist to a large amount. That’s not a crux for thinking this work is valuable. I think this sort of work is valuable because it introduces new, comprehensive-ish frameworks for thinking about timelines/takeoff. I’m not that excited about marginal timelines/takeoff work that doesn’t do this (at least for audiences of AI safety people, I think communicating views to others might still be valuable and I actually view a large part of the timelines forecast in AI 2027 as communicating the reasoning behind our beliefs in a more transparent way than a non-quantitative approach would).
what would your preferred state of the timelines discourse be?
My main recommendation would be, “Don’t pin down probability distributions that are (significantly) more precise than seems justified.” I can’t give an exact set of guidelines for what constitutes “more precise than seems justified” (such is life as a bounded agent!). But to a first approximation:
Suppose I’m doing some modeling, and I find myself thinking, “Hm, what feels like the right median for this? 40? But ehh maybe 50, idk…”
And suppose I can’t point to any particular reason for favoring 40 over 50, or vice versa. (Or, I can point to some reasons for one number but also some reasons for the other, and it’s not clear which are stronger — when I try weighing up these reasons against each other, I find some reasons for one higher-order weighing and some reasons for another, etc. etc.)
This isn’t a problem for every pair of numbers that occurs to us when estimating stuff. If I have to pick between, say, 2030 or 2060 for my AGI timelines median, it seems like I have reason to trust my (imprecise!) intuition[1] that AI progress is going fast enough that 2060 is unreasonable.
Then: I wouldn’t pick just one of 40 or 50 for the median, or just one number in between. I’d include them all.
I totally agree that we can’t pin down the parameters to high precision
I’m not sure I understand your position, then. Do you endorse imprecise probabilities in principle, but report precise distributions for some illustrative purpose? (If so, I’d worry that’s misleading.) My guess is that we’re not yet on the same page about what “pin down the parameters to high precision” means.
I think this sort of work is valuable because it introduces new, comprehensive-ish frameworks for thinking about timelines/takeoff
Agreed! I appreciate your detailed transparency in communicating the structure of the model, even if I disagree about the formal epistemology.
communicating the reasoning behind our beliefs in a more transparent way than a non-quantitative approach would
If our beliefs about this domain ought to be significantly imprecise, not just uncertain, then I’d think the more transparent way to communicate your reasoning would be to report an imprecise (yet still quantitative) forecast.
I don’t want to overstate this, tbc. I think this intuition is only trustworthy to the extent that I think it’s a compression of (i) lots of cached understanding I’ve gathered from engaging with timelines research, and (ii) conservative-seeming projections of AI progress that pass enough of a sniff test. If I came into this domain with no prior background, just having a vibe of “2060 is way too far off” wouldn’t be a sufficient justification, I think.
One way to put this is: what would your preferred state of the timelines discourse be?
I totally agree that we can’t pin down the parameters to high precision and disagreement will continue to subsist to a large amount. That’s not a crux for thinking this work is valuable. I think this sort of work is valuable because it introduces new, comprehensive-ish frameworks for thinking about timelines/takeoff. I’m not that excited about marginal timelines/takeoff work that doesn’t do this (at least for audiences of AI safety people, I think communicating views to others might still be valuable and I actually view a large part of the timelines forecast in AI 2027 as communicating the reasoning behind our beliefs in a more transparent way than a non-quantitative approach would).
My main recommendation would be, “Don’t pin down probability distributions that are (significantly) more precise than seems justified.” I can’t give an exact set of guidelines for what constitutes “more precise than seems justified” (such is life as a bounded agent!). But to a first approximation:
Suppose I’m doing some modeling, and I find myself thinking, “Hm, what feels like the right median for this? 40? But ehh maybe 50, idk…”
And suppose I can’t point to any particular reason for favoring 40 over 50, or vice versa. (Or, I can point to some reasons for one number but also some reasons for the other, and it’s not clear which are stronger — when I try weighing up these reasons against each other, I find some reasons for one higher-order weighing and some reasons for another, etc. etc.)
This isn’t a problem for every pair of numbers that occurs to us when estimating stuff. If I have to pick between, say, 2030 or 2060 for my AGI timelines median, it seems like I have reason to trust my (imprecise!) intuition[1] that AI progress is going fast enough that 2060 is unreasonable.
Then: I wouldn’t pick just one of 40 or 50 for the median, or just one number in between. I’d include them all.
I’m not sure I understand your position, then. Do you endorse imprecise probabilities in principle, but report precise distributions for some illustrative purpose? (If so, I’d worry that’s misleading.) My guess is that we’re not yet on the same page about what “pin down the parameters to high precision” means.
Agreed! I appreciate your detailed transparency in communicating the structure of the model, even if I disagree about the formal epistemology.
If our beliefs about this domain ought to be significantly imprecise, not just uncertain, then I’d think the more transparent way to communicate your reasoning would be to report an imprecise (yet still quantitative) forecast.
I don’t want to overstate this, tbc. I think this intuition is only trustworthy to the extent that I think it’s a compression of (i) lots of cached understanding I’ve gathered from engaging with timelines research, and (ii) conservative-seeming projections of AI progress that pass enough of a sniff test. If I came into this domain with no prior background, just having a vibe of “2060 is way too far off” wouldn’t be a sufficient justification, I think.
As a followup: Hopefully this post of mine further clarifies my position, specifically the “Unawareness and superforecasting” section.