I think long duration is way too many syllables, and I think I have similar problems with this naming schema as Fast/Slow, but, if you were going to go with this naming schema I think just saying “short takeoff” and “long takeoff” seems about as clear (“duration” comes implied IMO)
I don’t love “smooth” vs “sharp” because these words don’t naturally point at what seem to me to be the key concept: the duration from the first AI capable of being transformatively useful to the first system which is very qualitatively generally superhuman[1]. You can have “smooth” takeoff driven by purely scaling things up where this duration is short or nonexistent.
I’m not sure I buy the distinction mattering?
Here’s a few worlds:
Smooth takeoff to superintelligence via scaling the whole way, no RSI
Smooth takeoff to superintelligence via a mix of scaling, algorithmic advance, RSI, etc
smoothish looking takeoff via scaling (like we currently see) but then suddenly the shape of the curve changes dramatically due to RSI or similar
smoothish looking takeoff via scaling like we see, but, and then RSI is the mechanism by which the curve continues, but not very quickly (maybe this implies the curve actively levels off S-curve style before eventually picking up again)
alt-world where we weren’t even seeing similar types of smoothly advancing AI, and then there’s abrupt RSI takeoff in days or months
alt-world where we weren’t seeing similar smooth scaling AI, and then RSI is the thing that initiates our current level of growth
At least with the previous way I’d been thinking about things, I think the worlds above that look smooth, I feel like “yep, that was a smooth takeoff.”
Or, okay, I thought about it a bit more and maybe agree that “time between first transformatively-useful to superintelligence” is a key variable. But, I also think that variable is captured by saying “smooth takeoff/long timelines?” (which is approximately what people are currently saying?
Hmm, I updated towards being less confident while thinking about this.
But, I also think that variable is captured by saying “smooth takeoff/long timelines?” (which is approximately what people are currently saying?
You can have smooth and short takeoff with long timelines. E.g., imagine that scaling works all the way to ASI, but requires a ton of baremetal flop (e.g. 1e34) implying longer timelines and early transformative AI requires almost as much flop (e.g. 3e33) such that these events are only 1 year apart.
I think we’re pretty likely to see a smooth and short takeoff with ASI prior to 2029. Now, imagine that you were making this exactly prediction up through 2029 in 2000. From the perspective in 2000, you are exactly predicting smooth and short takeoff with long timelines!
So, I think this is actually a pretty natural prediction.
For instance, you get this prediction if you think that a scalable paradigm will be found in the future and will scale up to ASI and on this scalable paradigm the delay between ASI and transformative AI will be short (either because the flop difference is small or because flop scaling will be pretty rapid at the relevant point because it is still pretty cheap, perhaps <$100 billion).
I agree with the spirit of what you are saying but I want to register a desire for “long timelines” to mean “>50 years” or “after 2100”. In public discourse, heading Yann LeCunn say something like “I have long timelines, by which I mean, no crazy event in the next 5 years”—it’s simply not what people think when they think long timelines, outside of the AI sphere.
I think long duration is way too many syllables, and I think I have similar problems with this naming schema as Fast/Slow, but, if you were going to go with this naming schema I think just saying “short takeoff” and “long takeoff” seems about as clear (“duration” comes implied IMO)
I’m not sure I buy the distinction mattering?
Here’s a few worlds:
Smooth takeoff to superintelligence via scaling the whole way, no RSI
Smooth takeoff to superintelligence via a mix of scaling, algorithmic advance, RSI, etc
smoothish looking takeoff via scaling (like we currently see) but then suddenly the shape of the curve changes dramatically due to RSI or similar
smoothish looking takeoff via scaling like we see, but, and then RSI is the mechanism by which the curve continues, but not very quickly (maybe this implies the curve actively levels off S-curve style before eventually picking up again)
alt-world where we weren’t even seeing similar types of smoothly advancing AI, and then there’s abrupt RSI takeoff in days or months
alt-world where we weren’t seeing similar smooth scaling AI, and then RSI is the thing that initiates our current level of growth
At least with the previous way I’d been thinking about things, I think the worlds above that look smooth, I feel like “yep, that was a smooth takeoff.”
Or, okay, I thought about it a bit more and maybe agree that “time between first transformatively-useful to superintelligence” is a key variable. But, I also think that variable is captured by saying “smooth takeoff/long timelines?” (which is approximately what people are currently saying?
Hmm, I updated towards being less confident while thinking about this.
You can have smooth and short takeoff with long timelines. E.g., imagine that scaling works all the way to ASI, but requires a ton of baremetal flop (e.g. 1e34) implying longer timelines and early transformative AI requires almost as much flop (e.g. 3e33) such that these events are only 1 year apart.
I think we’re pretty likely to see a smooth and short takeoff with ASI prior to 2029. Now, imagine that you were making this exactly prediction up through 2029 in 2000. From the perspective in 2000, you are exactly predicting smooth and short takeoff with long timelines!
So, I think this is actually a pretty natural prediction.
For instance, you get this prediction if you think that a scalable paradigm will be found in the future and will scale up to ASI and on this scalable paradigm the delay between ASI and transformative AI will be short (either because the flop difference is small or because flop scaling will be pretty rapid at the relevant point because it is still pretty cheap, perhaps <$100 billion).
I agree with the spirit of what you are saying but I want to register a desire for “long timelines” to mean “>50 years” or “after 2100”. In public discourse, heading Yann LeCunn say something like “I have long timelines, by which I mean, no crazy event in the next 5 years”—it’s simply not what people think when they think long timelines, outside of the AI sphere.
Long takeoff and short takeoff sound strange to me. Maybe because they are too close to long timelines and short timelines.
Yeah I think the similarity of takeoff and timelines is maybe the real problem.
Like if Takeoff wasn’t two syllables that starts with T I might be happy with ‘short/long’ being the prefix for both.