Addendum: Scott Aaronson expresses this much better than I can: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7672 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7672 > But here’s the problem:

Addendum: Scott Aaronson expresses this much better than I can: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7672 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=7672 > But here’s the problem: in saying “for all I know, human-level AI might take thousands of years,” I thought I was being radically uncertain already. I was explaining that there was no trend you could knowably, reliably project into the future such that you’d end up with human-level AI by roughly such-and-such time. And in a sense, I was right. The trouble, with hindsight, was that I placed the burden of proof only on those saying a dramatic change would happen, not on those saying it wouldn’t. Note that this is the same mistake most of the world made with COVID in early 2020. > I would sum up the lesson thus: one must never use radical ignorance as an excuse to default, in practice, to the guess that everything will stay basically the same.