3 ms·

I find this article quite poorly constructed. It does not even give a statement about the reasoning behind why Karpathy said getting to https://ai-2027.com http

I find this article quite poorly constructed. It does not even give a statement about the reasoning behind why Karpathy said getting to https://ai-2027.com https://ai-2027.com is unlikely. It also does not clearly define what AI 2027 is? The following paragraph is almost complete gibberish: "For AI experts, Karpathy's view is a better counterargument to short timelines than ours. But for non-AI-experts, we think the practical considerations we raised are worth reflecting on with 6 more months of evidence. As forecasters, this is more of an "outside view" - regardless of how exactly AI improves, what problems might slow down an R&D-based takeoff scenario?" Why would Karpathy's view be different for AI and non-AI-experts? Did they use AI to write the article?

ddp26 1y ago
Hi, author here, sorry I was unclear. This article does make more sense if you've listened to the Dwarkesh podcast linked, and read AI 2027 as was linked. I realize now that it was presumptuous to assume people had done both of these things.
- ddp26 1y ago
  And to actually answer your question: > Why would Karpathy's view be different for AI and non-AI-experts? For people who understand AI, they can engage with the substance of his claims, about reinforcement learning, continuous learning, and his points about the 9s of reliability. For people who don't, the article suggests thinking about AI as some black-box technology, and asking questions about base rates: how long does adoption normally take? What do the companies developing the technology normally do? > It does not even give a statement about the reasoning behind why Karpathy said getting to https://ai-2027.com https://ai-2027.com is unlikely. That's the substance of the podcast, Karpathy justifies his views fairly well and at length. > It also does not clearly define what AI 2027 is? Dwarkesh covered AI 2027 when it came out, but for those who don't know, it's a deeply researched case of runaway AI that effectively destroys humanity in just 2-3 years after publication. This is what I mean by "short timelines".
  - andy_ppp 1y ago
    Thanks a lot for helping to explain rather than taking my comments personally!

ddp26 1y ago

Hi, author here, sorry I was unclear. This article does make more sense if you've listened to the Dwarkesh podcast linked, and read AI 2027 as was linked. I realize now that it was presumptuous to assume people had done both of these things.

ddp26 1y ago
And to actually answer your question: > Why would Karpathy's view be different for AI and non-AI-experts? For people who understand AI, they can engage with the substance of his claims, about reinforcement learning, continuous learning, and his points about the 9s of reliability. For people who don't, the article suggests thinking about AI as some black-box technology, and asking questions about base rates: how long does adoption normally take? What do the companies developing the technology normally do? > It does not even give a statement about the reasoning behind why Karpathy said getting to https://ai-2027.com https://ai-2027.com is unlikely. That's the substance of the podcast, Karpathy justifies his views fairly well and at length. > It also does not clearly define what AI 2027 is? Dwarkesh covered AI 2027 when it came out, but for those who don't know, it's a deeply researched case of runaway AI that effectively destroys humanity in just 2-3 years after publication. This is what I mean by "short timelines".
- andy_ppp 1y ago
  Thanks a lot for helping to explain rather than taking my comments personally!