Matthew Barnett posts analysis of Eliezer Yudkowsky's calibration on AI doom predictions centered on a 2016 statement about Turing test timelines before the end of the world
NathanpmYoung replies that the statement offers limited evidence on timelines.
@Jsevillamol This prediction was how he operationalized one of the three central premises of his argument with Bryan Caplan about AI doom. I think it's relevant to his track record, even if not conclusive.
Jaime Sevilla@Jsevillamol@MatthewJBar He has previously owned this was a bad prediction, and has also has made some surprising claims that turned out to be correct eg >16% probability of IMO gold by 2025. I love holding people accountable as much as anyone, but let's not bash people based in a single example.
@MatthewJBar He has previously owned this was a bad prediction, and has also has made some surprising claims that turned out to be correct eg >16% probability of IMO gold by 2025.
I love holding people accountable as much as anyone, but let's not bash people based in a single example.
Matthew Barnett@MatthewJBarTo assess whether Eliezer Yudkowsky is calibrated on AI doom, it seems relevant that in 2016 he said he'd be "pretty shocked" if an AI could pass an unrestricted one-hour Turing test before the end of the world.
@MatthewJBar Seems like some evidence but not a lot.
Matthew Barnett@MatthewJBarTo assess whether Eliezer Yudkowsky is calibrated on AI doom, it seems relevant that in 2016 he said he'd be "pretty shocked" if an AI could pass an unrestricted one-hour Turing test before the end of the world.