That’s why I specified “close on a log scale.” Evolution may be very inefficient, but it also has access to MUCH more data than a single lifetime.
Yes, we should put some weight on both perspectives. What I’m worried about here is this trend where everyone seems to expect AGI in a decade or so even if the current wave of progress fizzles—I think that is a cached belief. We should be prepared to update.
I don’t expect AGI in a decade or so even if the current wave of progress fizzles. I’d put around 20% over the next decade if progress fizzles (it depends on the nature of the fizzle), which is what I was arguing for.
I’m saying we should put some weight on possibilities near lifetime level compute (in log space) and some weight on possibilities near evolution level compute (in log space).
That’s why I specified “close on a log scale.” Evolution may be very inefficient, but it also has access to MUCH more data than a single lifetime.
Yes, we should put some weight on both perspectives. What I’m worried about here is this trend where everyone seems to expect AGI in a decade or so even if the current wave of progress fizzles—I think that is a cached belief. We should be prepared to update.
I don’t expect AGI in a decade or so even if the current wave of progress fizzles. I’d put around 20% over the next decade if progress fizzles (it depends on the nature of the fizzle), which is what I was arguing for.
I’m saying we should put some weight on possibilities near lifetime level compute (in log space) and some weight on possibilities near evolution level compute (in log space).
I’m not sure we disagree then.