To single out a specific review
For example, they describe trees as “self-replicating factories that spin air into wood” and conclude that “any intelligence capable of comprehending biochemistry at the deepest level is capable of building its own self-replicating factories to serve its own purposes.”
So an AI could self replicate…because a tree can?? not all trees even self-replicate so the metaphor isn’t even right
Found a cluster of negative reviews for Yud’s book Scott Alexander’s review managed to land on the list somehow
I first learned of it through a comment under a Yudkowsky interview, comparing his messages to the book’s, which is not exactly confidence inspiring
I definitely reeks of conspiracy theory, per this description Edit 2: and the way it talks about the decline in birth rates is also setting off red flags
Two ‘its not x, its y’ statements in close proximity also raise my ‘ai generated’ suspicions
Stumbled upon this book today the author is apparently fake as per this article (I did my own search and didn’t find anything)
There’s a youtube video (edit:podcast) on it that I’ll watch later
The pumpkin spice maximiser
AI will make free ice cream for everyone
Also, ‘it’ll be Good beyond our wildest imagination’ is just the vaguest thing ever. ‘yeah bro AI is gonna make everything super good. How? Why? uhhh i dont know it just will’
Ah yes ‘only these two things are possible, dont consider any other outcome’ truly rational thought
They’re also incredibly horny about creating conscious digital slaves for some godforsaken reason
The y axis is also incredibly misleading-everything under 56h is squashed down so that the gap looks bigger
Might as well start this off
so we all remember this graph from AI 2027 right? the graph that the whole paper relies on?
well its wrong. not just normal wrong, it’s ‘the authors literally disowned it’ wrong
(ignore the claude mythos purple x i took this from a reddit screenshot) but they completely changed their predictions in december 2025, several months after the original paper was published
Found another booster graph about AI 2027
wonder why ‘absolute horizons depend on calibration’ is written in the smallest text at the bottom of the page…
I have unfortunately stumbled upon some nonsense from r/singularity
shockingly, the top comments are calling bs:
”I’m sorry but I think this time line is a load of bull. “Human task duration at 80% success”. How exactly do you put a millenium prize puzzle on such an axis? It doesn’t even make any sense. Whoever is making this chart is just trying to stay relevant but his analysis holds little predictive power.”
They also missed how that graph is measuring software/coding tasks, while the OP was estimating based off math ability, which are two wildly different fields
So I got bored and for some reason decided to look at the AI 2027 prediction grading doc again…and its Claude Mythos rank is just straight up wrong?
To quote the doc: “ The current best 80% time horizon is Mythos Preview at 186 minutes (version 1.1; there is no measurement for version 1.0). The methodology change from TH1.0 to TH1.1 drops the best model as of AI 2027 publication (Claude 3.7 Sonnet) by 2/3 from 15 to 10 minutes. Because we care more about the pace of progress rather than the absolute values, we look at when the AI 2027 trajectory reaches 186*(3/2)=279 minutes. In a central AI-2027-speed trajectory from our AI 2027 timelines model, 279 minutes is achieved in May 2026.”
Except Claude Sonnet wasn’t dropped to 10 minutes, it was dropped to 12. to play devil’s advocate maybe it was updated between then and now? but it doesnt seem like it.
AI safety is mostly a sex cult
the guy who posted this is also a singularity fanatic, but this is a good enough summary
r/BetterOffline post about the article
Brief comment snippet: