StructureIn 8 claims' maps0 sources downstream across 8 claims
EvidenceNot yet read
Examinations
None recorded.
Text554 passages · 7 marked
No examination yetMarked passage
Skip to main content0 passages
Report GitHub Issue6 passages
Report Issue0 passages
Back to Abstract0 passages
Download PDF0 passages
Contents0 passages
Reading mode0 passages
Colour theme0 passages
Abstract0 passages
1 Introduction0 passages
2 The Survey0 passages
3 Results on AI Progress9 passages
4 Results on Social Impacts of AI6 passages
5 Discussion0 passages
6 Methods0 passages
7 Acknowledgments0 passages
8 Funding0 passages
9 Additional Information0 passages
References0 passages
A Results Comparing Different Demographics2 passages
A.2.1 Amount of thinking about the issue0 passages
A.2.2 Academia vs industry, undergraduate region, and amount of thought1 passage
B Supplementary Figures4 passages
C Full Descriptions of Milestones0 passages
D Additional Information on Participation Bias and Question-level Response Bias0 passages
E Links to Data0 passages
F Yuen’s Test (Bootstrap Version) Results0 passages
License: CC BY 4.01 passage
Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI1 passage
Affiliation: Berkeley, California0 passages
Affiliation: United States0 passages
Email: katja@aiimpacts.org1 passage
Affiliation: AI Impacts0 passages
Affiliation: Berkeley, California0 passages
Affiliation: United States1 passage
Affiliation: Department of Psychology0 passages
Affiliation: University of Bonn0 passages
Affiliation: Germany1 passage
Affiliation: AI Impacts0 passages
Affiliation: Berkeley, California0 passages
Affiliation: United States0 passages
Ben Weinstein-Raun0 passages
Affiliation: Independent0 passages
Affiliation: Berkeley, California0 passages
Affiliation: United States1 passage
Affiliation: Department of Computer Science0 passages
Affiliation: University of Oxford0 passages
Affiliation: United Kingdom2 passages
Affiliation: AI Impacts0 passages
Affiliation: Berkeley, California0 passages
Affiliation: United States0 passages
January 20240 passages
Abstract2 passages
Preprint0 passages
1 Introduction4 passages
2 The Survey6 passages
3 Results on AI Progress81 passages · 5 marked
3.1.1 Comparison with 2022
In both 2022 and 2023, respondents gave a wide range of predictions for how soon HLMI will be feasible (Figure 3 ). The aggregate 2023 forecast predicted a 50% chance of HLMI by 2047, down thirteen years from 2060 in the 2022 survey. For comparison, in the six years between the 2016 and 2022 surveys, the expected date moved only one year earlier, from 2061 to 2060 1 1
1
The aggregate 2023 forecast predicted a 10% chance of HLMI by 2027, down two years from 2029 in the 2022 survey. See Appendix B for a table comparing this with Full Automation of Labor, which is discussed below.
The aggregate 2023 forecast predicted a 50% chance of FAOL by 2116, down 48 years from 2164 in the 2022 survey (Figure 3 ). We checked if this difference was significant for participants who received the question in the fixed-probabilities framing, and found that it was (p = .0052, Yuen’s test (bootstrap version); see Appendix F ). There is about a 70-year difference between the mean 50% prediction for HLMI and the mean 50% prediction for FAOL. We discuss this surprising finding in the next section, “Framing effect of HLMI vs FAOL.”
Predictions for a 50% chance of the arrival of FAOL are consistently more than sixty years later than those for a 50% chance of the arrival of HLMI. This was seen in the results from the surveys of 2023, 2022, and 2016. This is surprising because HLMI and FAOL are quite similar: FAOL asks about the automation of all occupations; HLMI asks about the feasible automation of all tasks. Since occupations might naturally be understood either as complex tasks, composed of tasks, or closely connected with one of these, achieving HLMI seems to either imply having already achieved FAOL, or suggest being close.
3.3 Framing effect of fixed-years vs fixed-probabilities
The previously-observed framing effect was again observed in this survey. For example, the year with a 50% chance of HLMI from participants answering in the fixed-year frame (34 years) was twice as far into the future as that for participants answering in the fixed-probability frame (17 years). However, it’s notable that even the larger of these two is shorter than 2022’s combined forecast (37 years), demonstrating a substantial shift of predictions closer to the present (Fig 18 in Appendix B ).
Research on long-term existential risks from AI systems1 passage
AI-specific formal verification research1 passage
Policy research about how to maximize the public benefits of AI15 passages
5 Discussion12 passages · 2 marked
5.1 Summary of results
While the range of views on how long it will take for milestones to be feasible can be broad, this year’s survey saw a general shift towards earlier expectations. Over the fourteen months since the last survey [ Grace et al., 2022 ] , a similar participant pool expected human-level performance 13 to 48 years sooner on average (depending on how the question was phrased), and 21 out of 32 shorter term milestones are now expected earlier.
5.2 Caveats and limitations · 5.2.1 Forecasting is hard, even for experts
There are signs in this research and past surveys that these experts are not accurate forecasters across the range of questions we ask. For one thing, on many questions different respondents give very different answers, which limits the number of them who can be close to the truth. Nonetheless, in other contexts, averages from a large set of noisy predictions can still be relatively accurate [ Surowiecki, 2004 ] , so a question remains as to how informative these aggregate forecasts are.