I suspect that @Mitchell_Porter implies that technical alignment will be solved in three years instead of 14. After all, the AI-2027 scenario had Agent-4 solve alignment to itself in the form of Agent-5 in IIRC 10 simulated years, aka two real months fromOct 2027 to Dec 2027…
The model for capabilities progress is described here https://ai-2040.com/supplements/takeoff-supplement .
It seems like the base rate of crazy discontinuous architectural improvements that work at much-lower-than-frontier-levels-of-compute is low. I feel like I’d be more worried about them if there was an argument for why the underlying inputs to that discovery process would be much higher in Plan A, otherwise “people have been able to think about brain-like architectures for quite a while, but haven’t succeeded yet” seems like evidence that it’s quite hard. Maybe advances in actual neuroscience would make it easier?
I suspect that @Mitchell_Porter implies that technical alignment will be solved in three years instead of 14. After all, the AI-2027 scenario had Agent-4 solve alignment to itself in the form of Agent-5 in IIRC 10 simulated years, aka two real months from Oct 2027 to Dec 2027…
P.S. How exactly does the modeling of the covert AGI project account for rushing to develop a brainlike architecture and scaling it to the ASI?
Or for the fact that OpenBrainhad a 30% utilisation and used 4e28 FLOPto come up with Agent-5?The model for capabilities progress is described here https://ai-2040.com/supplements/takeoff-supplement . It seems like the base rate of crazy discontinuous architectural improvements that work at much-lower-than-frontier-levels-of-compute is low. I feel like I’d be more worried about them if there was an argument for why the underlying inputs to that discovery process would be much higher in Plan A, otherwise “people have been able to think about brain-like architectures for quite a while, but haven’t succeeded yet” seems like evidence that it’s quite hard. Maybe advances in actual neuroscience would make it easier?