As far as I can tell, the author of the critique specifically avoids espousing a timeline of his own. Indeed, he dislikes how these sorts of timeline models are

As far as I can tell, the author of the critique specifically avoids espousing a timeline of his own. Indeed, he dislikes how these sorts of timeline models are used in general: > I’m not against people making shoddy toy models, and I think they can be a useful intellectual exercise. I’m not against people sketching out hypothetical sci-fi short stories, I’ve done that myself. I am against people treating shoddy toy models as rigorous research, stapling them to hypothetical short stories, and then taking them out on podcast circuits to go viral. What I’m most against is people taking shoddy toy models seriously and basing life decisions on them, as I have seen happen for AI2027. This is just a model for a tiny slice of the possibility space for how AI will go, and in my opinion it is implemented poorly even if you agree with the author's general worldview. In particular, I wouldn't describe the author's position as "probably not longer than 2032" (give or take the usual quibbles over what tasks are a necessary part of "superhuman intelligence"). Indeed, he rates social issues from AI as a more plausible near-term threat than dangerous AGI takeoff [0], and he is very skeptical about how well any software-based AI can revolutionize the physical sciences [1]. [0] https://titotal.substack.com/p/slopworld-2035-the-dangers-of-mediocre https://titotal.substack.com/p/slopworld-2035-the-dangers-of... [1] https://titotal.substack.com/p/ai-is-not-taking-over-material-science https://titotal.substack.com/p/ai-is-not-taking-over-materia...