If the trend isn’t inherently superexponential and continues at 7 month doubling times by default, it does seem hard to get to AGI within a few years. If it’s 4 months, IIRC in my timelines model it’s still usually after 2027 but it can be close because of intermediate AI R&D speedups depending on how big you think the gaps between benchmarks and the real world. I’d have to go back and look if we want a more precise answer. If you add error bars around the 4 month time, that increases the chance of AGI soon ofc.
If you treat the shift from 7 to 4 month doubling times as weak evidence of superexponential, that might be evidence in favor of 2027 timelines depending on your prior.
IMO how you should update on this just depends on your prior views (echoing Ryan’s comment). Daniel had 50% AGI by 2027 and did and should update to a bit lower. I’m at more like 20-25% and I think stay about the same (and I think Ryan is similar). I think if you have more like <=10% you should probably update upward.
If the trend isn’t inherently superexponential and continues at 7 month doubling times by default, it does seem hard to get to AGI within a few years. If it’s 4 months, IIRC in my timelines model it’s still usually after 2027 but it can be close because of intermediate AI R&D speedups depending on how big you think the gaps between benchmarks and the real world. I’d have to go back and look if we want a more precise answer. If you add error bars around the 4 month time, that increases the chance of AGI soon ofc.
If you treat the shift from 7 to 4 month doubling times as weak evidence of superexponential, that might be evidence in favor of 2027 timelines depending on your prior.
IMO how you should update on this just depends on your prior views (echoing Ryan’s comment). Daniel had 50% AGI by 2027 and did and should update to a bit lower. I’m at more like 20-25% and I think stay about the same (and I think Ryan is similar). I think if you have more like <=10% you should probably update upward.