Scott provides detailed probabilistic timelines and beliefs about AGI development, AI safety, geopolitics, and future outcomes, with his median expectation being AGI in 2031 and 20% probability of existential catastrophe given current safety efforts. Longer summary

Scott lays out his detailed probabilistic beliefs about AI development across five main areas: timelines for AGI and superintelligence (25% chance of AGI by 2027, 50% by 2034), safety prospects (20% chance of doom given current safety efforts, down from 50% without them), geopolitics around AI pauses (40% chance of US-China pause agreement before point of no return), other outcomes like permanent underclass (only 20% likely to last more than a generation), and simulation hypothesis (66% chance the singularity is related to us being in a simulation). He provides arguments for optimism and pessimism on each point, with his modal scenario involving AGI in 2031, widespread automation by late 2030s, and Bostromian superintelligence making GDP go vertical in the early 2040s. The post is technical and probabilistic throughout, written in response to misinterpretations of his views. Shorter summary

Scott argues that even if AGI requires a new paradigm beyond LLMs, we shouldn't expect significant delays, since Lindy's Law suggests major paradigm shifts could occur within 3-5 years, and new paradigms typically emerge precisely when scaling hits limits. Longer summary

Scott addresses the objection that AGI is far off because LLMs need a 'new paradigm' to reach AGI. He traces the evolutionary tree of AI development from neural networks through transformers to modern LLMs, then applies Lindy's Law to show that even paradigm shifts as major as deep learning or transformers should be expected within 3-5 years at the 25th percentile. He argues this timeline is comparable to LLM-only predictions anyway. Scott also makes a subtler point: new paradigms historically emerge when old ones hit scaling limits, meaning they won't cause delays but rather continue progress from where scaling left off. He concludes that extrapolating from current LLM scaling remains the best forecasting method whether or not LLMs themselves reach AGI. Shorter summary

Scott explains why Ajeya Cotra's influential 'Biological Anchors' report correctly predicted the AI scaling boom but got AGI timelines wrong by twenty years, due to severely underestimating the rate of algorithmic progress. Longer summary

Scott analyzes why Ajeya Cotra's landmark 2020 'Biological Anchors' report predicted AGI around 2050, when current estimates now center on the late 2020s to 2040s. The report correctly predicted the scaling hypothesis and AI boom, but underestimated one crucial parameter: algorithmic progress was actually 200% per year instead of the predicted 30%. This single error, compounded across exponential growth, threw off the entire timeline by about twenty years. Scott examines various contemporary critiques of the report, finding that most concerns about the methodology were actually non-issues, while one throwaway concern (about algorithmic progress estimates being poorly researched) turned out to be the fatal flaw. He concludes this demonstrates both the power and limitations of probabilistic forecasting. Shorter summary

Scott announces his collaboration with AI Futures Project's blog and their upcoming AMA, highlighting recent posts including one about AI time horizons that was validated by new OpenAI data. Longer summary

Scott Alexander announces he will be shifting most of his AI blogging to the AI Futures Project blog, where he has already co-written several posts. He highlights three recent posts, particularly one about AI time horizons that was validated by new OpenAI data showing faster horizon growth than previously estimated. He also announces an upcoming AMA with the AI Futures Project team on ACX. Shorter summary

Scott introduces a new AI forecasting project predicting rapid AI development and potential superintelligence by 2028, led by Daniel Kokotajlo, whose previous 2021 predictions proved remarkably accurate. Longer summary

Scott Alexander introduces a new AI forecasting project led by Daniel Kokotajlo and a team of experts, which predicts rapid AI developments leading to superintelligence by 2028. The post begins by noting how accurate Kokotajlo's 2021 predictions were, then presents the team's forecast which includes an intelligence explosion in 2027, government involvement in AI companies, and potential scenarios ranging from misaligned AI to technofeudalism. Scott notes that while team members have varying timelines, they consider this an 80th percentile fast scenario that shouldn't be ruled out. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews competing methodologies for predicting AI timelines, focusing on Ajeya Cotra's biological anchors approach and Eliezer Yudkowsky's critique. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews Ajeya Cotra's report on AI timelines for Open Philanthropy, which uses biological anchors to estimate when transformative AI might arrive, and Eliezer Yudkowsky's critique of this methodology. The post explains Cotra's approach, Yudkowsky's objections, and various responses, ultimately concluding that while the report may not significantly change existing beliefs, the debate highlights important considerations in AI forecasting. Shorter summary

Scott analyzes a new survey of AI researchers, showing diverse opinions on AI timelines and risks, with many acknowledging potential dangers but few prioritizing safety research. Longer summary

This post discusses a recent survey of AI researchers about their opinions on AI progress and potential risks. The survey, conducted by Grace et al., shows a wide range of predictions about when human-level AI might be achieved, with significant uncertainty among experts. The post highlights that while many AI researchers acknowledge potential risks from poorly-aligned AI, few consider it among the most important problems in the field. Scott compares these results to a previous survey by Muller and Bostrom, noting some differences in methodology and results. He concludes by expressing encouragement that researchers are taking AI safety arguments seriously, while also pointing out a potential disconnect between acknowledging risks and prioritizing work on them. Shorter summary