Charts and models can make an AI forecast report wrongly convincing
JacquesThibs · x · 2026-11-09
Using OpenPhil's bio-anchors report as an example, the author argues that a forecasting report packed with charts and sophisticated-looking models can appear far more convincing than a free-text counterargument, yet its entire framing can still be wrong. After Eliezer Yudkowsky's rebuttal, people eventually updated in his direction. The point is not to discredit modeling the future (though it is hard), but to warn against mistaking polished presentation for evidence.
Related event: Alignment Forum Essay Critiques Bio-Anchors AGI Timeline Estimates(2 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Silicon Valley warns AI will kill everyone — normies respond by voting against data centers — DavidSKrueger · 2026-11-09
- Banning AI Is Like Banning Uranium Enrichment, Safety Researchers Quip — DavidSKrueger · 2026-11-09
- AI patronage model questioned: keeping access internal is just as disempowering — andersonbcdefg · 2026-11-09
- Cambridge AI safety prof delighted by Terminator one-liner used to pitch AI risk to Americans — DavidSKrueger · 2026-11-09
- Ending AI labs' power to pick winners via early model access, argued as key anti-RSI lever — andersonbcdefg · 2026-11-09
- AI safety debate: would a 50-year delay of frontier AI even help? — ohabryka · 2026-11-09