Minerval
Sourceunknowntext stored

https://arxiv.org/html/2401.02843v3

Author not recordedDate not recordedOriginal︎ ↗Archived copy

Claims8
ExaminationsNone
Text171 sections
VersionsOne known
CopiesNone recorded
CorrectionsNone recorded
Facts checked Nov 1, 2026
ReachNo copies recorded
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.”

3.2.3 Differences between HLMI and 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 ).

4 Results on Social Impacts of AI16 passages
Statistics0 passages
2022 Result0 passages
2023 Result11 passages
Not asked24 passages
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.

6 Methods26 passages
7 Acknowledgments3 passages
8 Funding1 passage
9 Additional Information2 passages
References0 passages
Grace et al. [2022]4 passages
OpenAI [2023]3 passages
Center for Human-compatible Artificial Intelligence [2023]3 passages
Newsom [2023]3 passages
AI.gov [2023]3 passages
Inter-Agency Working Group on Artificial Intelligence [2022]2 passages
Korzekwa and Stewart [2023]3 passages
Villalobos [2023]4 passages
Grace et al. [2021]4 passages
Omohundro [2008]4 passages
Park et al. [2023]3 passages
Jones [2023]3 passages
Trammell and Korinek [2023]3 passages
Future of Life Institute [2023]3 passages
Center for AI Safety [2023]3 passages
Biden [2023]3 passages
Amodei [2023]7 passages
European Parliament [2023]4 passages
Grace et al. [2018a]3 passages
Stein-Perlman [2023]3 passages
Chui et al. [2023]3 passages
AI Impacts [2023a]3 passages
Tversky and Kahneman [1981]3 passages
AI Impacts [2023b]3 passages
O*NET [2023]3 passages
Carlsmith [2022]3 passages
Russell [2014]3 passages
Tetlock [2005]6 passages
Savage et al. [2021]3 passages
Surowiecki [2004]3 passages
Karger et al. [2023]2 passages
Hamilton [2003]7 passages
Sandkühler et al. [2023]3 passages
AI Impacts [2023c]3 passages
Aghion et al. [2017]3 passages
Bray and von Storch [1999]3 passages
Bray and Von Storch [2010]3 passages
Doran and Zimmerman [2009]3 passages
Grace et al. [2018b]4 passages
Holbrook et al. [2007]3 passages
Stewart [1991]3 passages
Tversky and Kahneman [1983]3 passages
Verdolini et al. [2016]3 passages
Visser et al. [1996]3 passages
Wiser et al. [2021]3 passages
Zhang et al. [2022]3 passages
Appendix A Results Comparing Different Demographics3 passages
A.2.1 Amount of thinking about the issue4 passages
68%0 passages
41%1 passage
34%0 passages
71%2 passages
A.2.2 Academia vs industry, undergraduate region, and amount of thought13 passages
Appendix B Supplementary Figures13 passages
Appendix C Full Descriptions of Milestones1 passage
Short name0 passages
Full description from question0 passages
Physically install wiring in a house1 passage
Finetune LLM1 passage
Find and patch security flaw1 passage
Run ML study and write paper1 passage
Replicate ML paper1 passage
Build payment processing website1 passage
Long unsolved math problem1 passage
Translate text from a newly discovered language using a bilingual document1 passage
Translate new language speech using films with subtitles and existing bilingual data1 passage
Translate text nearly as well as a bilingual but untrained translator1 passage
Offer phone banking services, including unique tasks, on par with human operators1 passage
Classify unseen objects into categories after training on different but similar classes1 passage
Recognize a new object in varied settings after seeing it just once3 passages
Transcribe speech in noise and varied accents on par with humans1 passage
Output written text as a recording indistinguishable from a voice actor1 passage
Prove and generate math theorems publishable in top journals8 passages
Continuous time play1 passage
Huge action space1 passage
Partial observability of enemies2 passages
Match human novice in any new computer game in <10 min1 passage
Outperform humans in new Angry Birds levels1 passage
Beat pro testers in all Atari games1 passage
Beat novices in 50% of Atari games after 20 min play5 passages
Build any LEGO set using using non-specialized robotics, with instructions1 passage
Efficiently sort large number lists beyond training size1 passage
Write readable Python code for algorithms like quicksort from specs and examples2 passages
A specification of what counts as a sorted list1 passage
Several examples of lists undergoing sorting by quicksort12 passages
Answer undecided factual questions1 passage
Write high-grade, unique high school history essays without plagiarizing3 passages
Fake new song indistinguishable from a specific artist’s work by expert listeners3 passages
Concisely and completely explain AI’s computer game moves1 passage
Play poker well enough to win the World Series of Poker1 passage
Deduce and symbolize physical laws (e.g. Newtonian mechanics) of a virtual world1 passage
Appendix D Additional Information on Participation Bias and Question-level Response Bias7 passages
Appendix E Links to Data0 passages
Anonymized and cleaned responses: https://tinyurl.com/espai2023-clean-anon-responses0 passages
Example invitation letter: https://tinyurl.com/espai2023-invite0 passages
List of task descriptions: https://tinyurl.com/aitasks0 passages
The number of participants who saw and answered each question: https://tinyurl.com/espai2023-response-counts0 passages
Further data and analysis as it becomes available: https://tinyurl.com/espai2023-addenda0 passages
Appendix F Yuen’s Test (Bootstrap Version) Results45 passages
Instructions for reporting errors7 passages

Lineage across 8 claims

Draws on · none recorded
This source
https://arxiv.org/html/2401.02843v3
in 8 claims' maps
Drawn on by · none recorded

Record

Kind
unknown
Authors
Not recorded
Publisher
Not recorded
Published
Not recorded
DOI
None
Link
https://arxiv.org/html/2401.02843v3
Archived copy
https://web.archive.org/web/20260901205431/https://arxiv.org/html/2401.02843v3
Stored text
114,560 characters, retrieved Nov 1, 2026 · 171 sections, 554 passages
Claims extracted
Versions
One known
Copies
None recorded
Corrections
None recorded
Facts checked
Nov 1, 2026

History 3

  1. Nov 1, 2026DividedSegmenter · Divided into 757 parts by its own structure
  2. Nov 1, 2026FactsFacts fetcher · Facts looked up
  3. Nov 1, 2026Entered the graphEntered the graph; copy stored