But one year slip per year is not the pattern of a successful project - it's the pattern of a floundering one. You see this sometimes in projects where they still haven't figured out what the spec is for what they're trying to build. (So, do they know the spec for building a superintelligence? I'm pretty sure that no, they don't.)
What they have is evidence that they're making progress, and a completely-without-evidence idea of how much further ahead superintelligence might be, and an extrapolation based on progress continuing at the same rate. Well, the part that is the most suspect is the guess as to how far away superintelligence is. If that's wrong, the whole estimate is worthless.
As someone who's trusting, I do sort of listen to Altman or Amodei (who I think has been a bit more truthful in his predictions, a year from AI writing all software actually ended up being more truthful than I think people though, even if it isn't technically true) and like have this nagging voice in the back of my head that these people know something I don't, but then, just looking at this clear leadership trend seeming to suggest that lying is more profitable than trying to tell the truth, and the whole picture definitely does not look clear.
Non-Nitter link: https://x.com/kimmonismus/status/2024502735584780593
Just after the OpenAI IPO (Which that is AGI) and still plenty of time for everyone else to IPO right before another market crash.
Why did he choose 'end of 2028' after the 2028 election when Trump will then leave office in early 2029?
