The industrial expansion timelinen as described in AI 2027 is way too compressed; I don't think any AI doomer believes that. The dynamics are plausible though, even without China stealing the weights.
> The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt.
https://x.com/hilbertspaess/status/2097476203863224394
> The dynamics are plausible
Please elaborate: what dynamics? This is rather vague. My point is that AI can't grind real world physics/chemistry/engineering. What dynamics are in play here?
I'm willing to be wrong, but I'm just not seeing anything worth doomering over. There are multiple companies throwing AI at materials discovery; a research paper about a "data-driven framework" is about as unthreatening to my thesis as it gets. I'm willing to cede the point if say, Radical releases ~3 new materials that have commercial applicability and ~3x some useful metric e.g. tensile strength, but until then, to my amateur eye, it looks like AI+Real World is missing its ChatGPT moment.
Off the top of my head:
1. Loss of control in terms of our ability to assess alignment (no longer possible to determine whether an AI is truly aligned); this is happening already (doesn't imply that there are misaligned AIs right now, though)
2. Loss of control in terms of human comprehension of AI outputs - reaching a point where every action or result, including new discoveries, must itself be evaluated through other AIs; we may be close to this, as OpenAI is releasing an internal "AI researcher", yielding recursive AI development
3. Integration of AI into basic aspects and services of society
4. Extensive access by AI systems to physical tools and infrastructure
I think all those points will eventually materialize; sadly I don't see any reason why they won't.