Normal_Anomaly comments on New Year's Predictions Thread (2011) - Less Wrong

10 Post author: Kevin 02 January 2011 09:58AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (224)
Tags: predictions

Comments (224)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 04 January 2011 02:53:12AM 1 point [-]

This is helpful. One question, though:

It seems fairly likely that the median relevant representative expert would assign a probability over 5% but less than 50% to Legg/Kurzweil timelines, particularly if you factored out mysticism/religion-based skepticism.

Does this mean "For any given year, a relevant expert would only assign 1/20-1/2 the probability of FOOM by that year that Legg and Kurzweil do"? If not, what does it mean?

Comment author: CarlShulman 04 January 2011 07:40:51AM *  3 points [-]

Shane Legg says that there is a 95% probability of human-level AI by 2045. Kurzweil doesn't give probabilities, but claims high confidence in Turing Test passing AI by 2029 and a slow takeoff Singularity over the next two decades. I would bet that a representative sample of experts would assign less than 50% probability to human-level AI by 2045, but more than 5%.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 04 January 2011 10:38:14AM 3 points [-]

Shane Legg says that there is a 95% probability of human-level AI by 2045.

I was surprised, his recent post didn't leave me with this impression, and I didn't remember the past well enough. But apparently this is correct, here's the post and visualization of the prediction endorsed by Legg.

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 04 January 2011 12:36:10PM 1 point [-]

Cool, thanks.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit