Discussion

• @stefanfschubert Stefan Schubert on x

  Study by @KatjaGrace et al of nearly 3,000 AI researchers finds that the estimated AI timelines have shrunk. And many researchers think that the risk of extinction from AI is substantial. However, there's a lot of disagreement and also some inconsistency between questions. [image…

• @aiimpacts @aiimpacts on x

  We just ran probably the biggest survey of AI researchers ever! 2778 participants from six top AI venues answered questions from fourteen topics regarding the future of AI. Preprint: https://aiimpacts.org/... Six interesting things in pictures: [image]

• @_eyesoftruth_ @_eyesoftruth_ on x

  @primalpoly ... Constant nagging and finger pointing makes what may be well reasoned stances, entirely unpalatable. You can do better. Excluding everyone else and creating an “us vs them” dichotomy is only going to lead to you being treated as a pariah.

• @stuhlmueller Andreas Stuhlmüller on x

  .@KatjaGrace et al asked 2,500+ AI researchers about risks & expectations Thoughtful survey design - comparing to 2016 survey, randomizing participants into alternative wordings to check framing effects, and getting more in-depth info from smaller samples [image]

• @ednewtonrex Ed Newton-Rex on x

  New study suggests 40+% of AI researchers have at least “substantial concern” that labour automation over the next 30 years will leave most people economically powerless. [image]

• @mhdempsey Michael Dempsey on x

  This comparison on 2022 and 2023 shows that, but if you go even further back to the original analysis in 2016 it gets more fun. https://arxiv.org/... [image]

• @garrisonlovely Garrison Lovely on x

  This reads like a very chipper chatbot lol [image]

• @arthurconmy Arthur Conmy on x

  Great work, but I already see accounts freaking about mean P(doom) 16.2% ... i) the median P(doom) is 5% and ii) mean P(doom) barely changed from 15.7% in 2022

• @flixrisk @flixrisk on x

  📢📊 Important new survey results from @AIImpacts, surveying 2,700+ AI researchers. Some key points: ⚠️ The median respondent believes there's a 5% or greater chance of AI causing human extinction; one-third to half of respondents believe there's over a 10% chance. 😨 A majority...

• @garymarcus Gary Marcus on x

  Many people would like to see a truce between Yann LeCun and myself. I am among them. The world would benefit from civil, moderated debates between us, and I really enjoyed the 2017 debate we had together. At bottom I will explain the tiny action that could lead to a truce.... [i…

• @lxrjl Alex Lawsen on x

  I'm excited to dig into the results of the survey, but I'll start by shouting out the really excellent graphic design in the blogpost. These graphs are a really nice way of showing the highlighted results. https://blog.aiimpacts.org/...

• @gil2rok Gilad Turok on x

  Forecasting future events ⏩ is crazy difficult Instead of mastering calibration techniques 👨‍🔬, waiting and gathering more info ⏰ can be more impactful (though one can't always wait) The space of possible futures is enormous. Time can narrow it down considerably: ⬛️ ➡️ ▪️.

• @robinhanson Robin Hanson on x

  Seems clear to me these respondents aren't thinking in terms of a coming several centuries long innovation pause as per: https://www.overcomingbias.com/ ...

• @ben_j_todd Benjamin Todd on x

  I expected a new survey of AI researchers would find their forecasts for AGI had moved sooner. But I didn't expect a 13 year drop in just one year. (After ~no movement the last 6 years.) Forecasts for “high level machine intelligence”: 2023 survey: 2047 2022 survey: 2060 2016...

• @natesilver538 Nate Silver on x

  This is super interesting on AI risk. Think it would be good if other fields made more attempts to conduct scientific surveys of expert opinion. (Disclosure: I did a very small bit of unpaid consulting on this survey.)

• @thezvi Zvi Mowshowitz on x

  Whole survey is wild throughout. The answers, they do not make sense, nor do they together live in a remotely consistent world. I should be used to it, but I'm still boggled.

• @thezvi Zvi Mowshowitz on x

  Survey of AI researchers expects ability to do ALL human jobs faster and cheaper by 2047, but ‘full automation of labor’ only at ~2113, retail salesperson by ~2095. These seem like... completely different and incompatible predictions? We're going to sit on AI for generations?

• @primalpoly Geoffrey Miller on x

  Is Yann LeCun @ylecun a highly cited machine learning researcher? Yes. Is he also an arrogant, bad-faith bully who lies about his critics, avoids serious debate, dismisses AI risks, & prioritizes his financial interests in @meta over humanity's survival? Also, yes.

• @ristouuk Risto Uuk on x

  AI Impacts conducted a survey of 2,778 AI researchers who had published peer-reviewed research in the prior year in six top AI venues (NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, AAAI, IJCAI, JMLR). The survey took place in the fall of 2023 after the launch of ChatGPT and other top models, Future of...…

• @pentagoniac Christopher Nguyen on x

  @primalpoly ... Geoffrey, liking/disliking a person aside, it's not hard to see that pointing out limitations and flaws about some approach X is NOT necessarily seriously scholarly work, nor original thought that needs quotation. E.g., I have long held that LLMs cannot perform De…

• @mhdempsey Michael Dempsey on x

  “People overestimate what they can do in one year and underestimate what they can do in 10 years.” https://blog.aiimpacts.org/... [image]

• @nathanpmyoung Nathan on x

  New @AIImpacts survey from my friend @KatjaGrace and her team! Read the whole thing, but my 2 big takeaways: 1) Their AI timelines have shortened. The this year's survey (red line) is >5 years sooner than last years for almost any probability. [image]

• @anderssandberg Anders Sandberg on x

  Interesting study. Now, I am very sceptical of the skill of experts in topic X to predict future of X (not same skill), but just seeing what people inside a field think is also informative. If practitioners overall become more optimistic on performance, that is interesting.

• @natesilver538 Nate Silver on x

  The fact that there is broad-based practitioner concern about AI safety risk (although with a lot of variation from person to person) and a quickening of AI timelines is significant. You'll still get the occasional media report framing these as fringe positions. But they're not.

• @mrgunn @mrgunn on x

  The median researcher thinks AGI is 5% likely to be a catastrophic risk to humanity. For context, nuclear plants aim for 0.005% chance of major radiation leak & airlines aim for things like 0.5 fatalities per million takeoffs. With good risk management, we can get #AI there too.

• @robinhanson Robin Hanson on x

  “surveyed 2,778 researchers who had published in top-tier artificial intelligence (AI) venues, ... chance of all human occupations becoming fully automatable was forecast to reach 10% by 2037, and 50% as late as 2116 (compared to 2164 in the 2022 survey)”