(2025-04-08) Zvim Ai2027 Responses

Zvi Mowshowitz on AI 2027: Responses. Yesterday I covered Dwarkesh Patel’s excellent podcast coverage of AI 2027 with Daniel Kokotajlo and Scott Alexander. Today covers the reactions of others.

Kevin Roose in The New York Times

I was disappointed that the tone here seems to treat the scenario and the viewpoint behind it as ‘extreme’ or ‘fantastical.’ Yes, this scenario involves things that don’t yet exist and haven’t happened. It’s a scenario of the future

Eli Lifland Offers Takeaways

By 2027 we may automate AI R&D leading to vastly superhuman AIs.

Artificial superintelligences (ASIs) will dictate humanity’s future.

No US AI project is on track to be secure against nation-state actors stealing AI models by 2027.

Scott Alexander Offers Takeaways

I found this to be a good laying out of questions, even in places where Scott was anti-persuasive and moved me directionally away from the hypothesis he’s discussing. I would consider these less takeaways that are definitely right as they are takeaways of things to seriously consider.

Others Takes on Scenario 2027

Having a Concrete Scenario is Helpful

Phillip Tetlock Calibrates His Skepticism

Jan Kulveit Wants to Bet

I’d be happy to bet against “2027” being roughly correct ~8:1

Matthew Barnett Debates How To Evaluate the Results

This is an illustration of why setting up a bet like the above in a robust way is hard. (Prediction Market)

Teortaxes for China and Open Models and My Response

Others Wonder About PRC Passivity

Timothy Lee Remains Skeptical

David Shapiro for the Accelerationists and Scott’s Response

Shapiro wants to accelerate AI and calls himself an ‘AI maximalist.’ I am including this for completeness. If you already know where this is going and don’t need to read this section, you are encouraged to skip it. This was the most widely viewed version of this type of response I saw (227k views).

LessWrong Weighs In

Other Reactions