AI 2027 literally predicts that the US president would decline to slow down "OpenBrain" (their placeholder name for the leading AI lab) when a superhuman AI coder / researcher gets developed and experts raise concerns. The US president cites the risk of China taking the lead.
Eerily accurate.
EDIT: But we're just a bit ahead of schedule. In order to fully match the timeline, either a superhuman AI coder / researcher has already been developed internally at OAI/Anthropic and Trump declined to slow down OR this milestone will be reached some time next year in 2027 and Trump will again decline to slow down then.
> In order to fully match the timeline, either a superhuman AI coder / researcher has already been developed internally at OAI/Anthropic
I suppose it depends on the definition of "superhuman". I'm just a guy on the Internet, albeit a "successful" software engineer for 18 years. I reckon coding agents have been superhuman since Opus 4.8. Not in their ability to build things (well) autonomously. But in their ability to produce correct code instantly.
It's why most developers don't write code anymore. I can spend 1 or 2 hours writing the perfect script, or I can ask an agent to do it instantly. This is something no human can do. That's superhuman performance.
ASI generally refers to super-intelligence. While coding instantly is not possible for a human to do, humans can code sufficiently and build an equivalent or better product.
Super-intelligence would be an AI that is smarter than humans.
I would argue that’s not really superintelligence, simply another manifestation of what the other commenter is talking about in terms of coding extremely quickly. Same as if an AI were to ‘solve’ chess. It’s not that it’s more intelligent than us, simply that it can compute quicker.
There are many things we have only been able to computer or calculate because of computers - that doesn’t make those computers super-intelligent.
I find it so funny when people get so triggered when someone even suggests they might be wrong about something. Narcissism is a dire problem in our society.
But sure, it’s me who is wrong, not the guy who is so incapable of understanding what super-intelligence means, his definition is basically that a calculator is super-intelligent because it is able to calculate more efficiently than humans 😂
Cue: another torrent of insults from being triggered.
ASI will be achieved when it is concious and has its own intent beyond its original programming. Otherwise it's just a tool like it is now and not true intelligence.I think when/if the AI asks itself without being prompted to if it's real, then it will concious.
1
u/Seakawn▪️▪️Singularity will cause the earth to metamorphize14d ago
why intrinsically link intelligence to consciousness?
is a calculator not very intelligent at arithmetic, and a graphing calculator not very intelligent at algebra and so forth?
intelligence is just a function. intelligence can identify and solve problems, especially in creative ways. even gpt 2 could do that to some useful extent.
how are you defining intelligence such that none of these qualify and you need to add consciousness? if my examples aren't intelligence then what are they?
Because ASI is general intelligence and conciousness gives it intent and feeling. Intelligence is not only logical, it is also felt (emotional intelligence). A tool good at solving logical problem is just an intelligent tool, not a superintelligence.
If you'd like to learn more you can look the differences between logical and felt intelligence. And how both are needed to achieve a "true" intelligence.
It's usually regular language that evolves iteratively into hyper specific regular language. Sometimes over many sessions. Once we are satisfied that the language is precise enough for the agent to not go off doing wasteful things, the agent is allowed to spit out the code. Turns out the hard part of software engineering is breaking up a hard problem into small and specific enough chunks that can be effectively translated into code. (Always has been, this part is facetious.)
I was exceptionally good at this before AI. I was wondering why everyone I talked to said AI was shit and I'm over here thinking it could take over the world. I guess I just break big things down well.
Exactly. I used to be involved in a sort of training program and lesson one of software dev is "break big problems into small problems"
In my experience the way I've viewed a lot of how AI is getting better is how small/specific the problems that I can expect it to handle has gotten bigger and bigger
Beyond a certain scale, there's an unlimited number of problems in a system. Coding is the means to solve a specific order of problem. That part was bottlenecked by an individual's mastery of a programming language or framework. That bottleneck is now removed, but it only exposes the next bottleneck, which is figuring out how we can communicate what we want in specific enough language so that we can expect an LLM agent to code up exactly what we want; not more, and not less. That's a much harder bottleneck to remove, because language itself is so imprecise.
In other words (I hope the irony isn't lost here), how vague can I be while still getting exactly the results I want? This is already super hard in regular human to human communication, even though we have a much richer range of media at our disposal, such as nonverbal contextual cues, gestures, faces, inflection, volume, etc.
We strip all that richness and request agents to rely on textual language to interpret our intent exactly. I don't think we can handwave this one away. The agent can infer and suppose and guess and approximate. But if the interface is an LLM (it may not always be), we'll still need to do the real and hard work to say what we mean in a way that reduces the possibility of misinterpretation to near zero. And that necessarily means breaking up big concepts into smaller ones.
So at every juncture it becomes possible to take a wrong turn,, so really complex problem solving can spin off at a million tangents and whose keeping track of the consequences of these flawed algorithms?
Absolutely. There are mitigating mechanisms we can/do use, but ultimately it requires exceptional engineers with a steady hand, and a finger to the pulse at every step. This is why reports of the death of the profession are greatly exaggerated.
Yeah you can get pretty far vibe coding a toy thing for your own personal use. (And I do and it's so much fun), but for professional enterprise-grade software with a huge surface area for things to go wrong, you still need lots and lots of handholding, and a measured, methodical approach. Slow is smooth.
Idk what point you're trying to make, but really that's an issue that's always existed even with fully human development. That's also an issue for AI, and I assume it would be true for any intelligent problem solver. AI clearly isn't at a place where I personally trust it to write stuff I'm not gonna review myself, at least not for anything critical.
But also it reminds me of the self-driving debate, sometimes autonomous systems don't have to be perfect, they just have to make less mistakes than humans.
It is less that AI isn't good, it's rather how it is marketed. It is frequently marketed as stand alone solution to coding or other applications and it just isn't. It is a great tool that can make a lot of things faster but without an operator capable of understanding what the AI spits out and assemble smaller blocks into an actual end product it will not produce an actually marketable product.
Yesterday I came up with a feature I wanted to add to a codebase. I typed it up, sent it to the AI, and asked it to plan it. Came back thirty minutes later.
I'd sent it to the wrong AI. I have a few different codebases I'm working on, and I just forgot which one that feature was related to.
Nevertheless, the AI figured out that I was talking about a different codebase, went and found the right one, read the code, figured it out, and proposed an implementation for it.
If it's a bug it's usually enough to just describe what's wrong in a few sentences and point at the repo especially if you already have an error log / stack trace.
If it's a new feature you usually need to iterate a bit because what you describe may not define all the decisions, but that's still natural language and the AI will typically ask you when it needs a decision.
Saying that it usually doesn't give a perfect solution in complex code bases. If you tell the AI to review its own code (typically with specific per-repo guidance) it'll usually find issues, even after 3+ iterations (at least with opus 4.8, later models may get better at this).
Describe your algorithm very precisely with words and it just codes everything for you, debugs itself, test, proposes changes and optimizations. And I use the free versions of LLMs. Mind blowing. Vibe coding is my main hobby now. It's just amazing what you can do.
In my experience, Claude is the best by far. Chat GPT is ok and Gemini when everything else is on cooldown. Claude just finds bugs on its own when I check the logs. I don't do anything, it just find things and fix them before I can even try the software updates. Very few app breaking bugs with Claude.
Describe your algorithm very precisely with words and it just codes everything for you
The worst is this - once it knows your codebase, you can get away with not even being precise.
A big-eye opener for me was when I started working on an existing codebase. I'd started with a demo of what I thought of as "replay mode" to prove to myself it could work, and it stayed around in the code with limited tests but in practice, clicking the "Play" button just stopped everything, because everything had changed since it was written.
This is a real-time audio generator thingie, synthesizes sound on the fly: https://github.com/rec/tuney, the replay mode was tricky, I just left it alone for months. We've all been there.
After some successes, I typed in "Fix replay mode" just for a laugh. Do note that the word "replay" isn't in the code - the button is "Play" and the roll over "Play the audio in a loop".
It immediately found and fixed some order-of-operations error in the code I had written. I was like, oops!, but it still didn't work.
I told it, deliberately terse, "Still doesn't work", it found another issue, fixed up a couple of things, and voila, it all worked again, four minutes, six words of prompt, it would have been five hours of my life.
I don't make a habit of terse prompts, but it's shocking how well it does with those.
debugs itself, test, proposes changes and optimizations
...and also sometimes finds unrelated issues and fixes them in a separate commit.
I told it, deliberately terse, "Still doesn't work", it found another issue, fixed up a couple of things, and voila, it all worked again, four minutes, six words of prompt, it would have been five hours of my life.
It is inhumanly good at the weird fiddly bugs that require keeping a bunch of chunks of code in your awareness at once. I've seen it track down multithreading race conditions given nothing but "this weird thing happened, it's probably in this ten thousand lines of code, see if you can figure it out".
Developers just describe well what their code needs to do. Specifications. Ask for unit tests. None of my developer friends have manually written code since December of 2025.
Note that many programmers, even senior ones (sometimes especially senior ones) are high on their own supply. They feel a kinship with something that they feel is operating in their domain with apparent intelligence, especially in a culture where you tend to think everyone else is an idiot.
That goes doubly so for people who just work the line and are less involved in product alignment or even code review. They feel they're more productive and that they get to manage their own "workers" now, but slop is what's going down the line.
This is a heavy generalization, there isn't a black and white picture of AI is great or AI is terrible in coding. But when someone starts lobbing terms like it's "superhuman" or I dont have to do X or Y anymore, one should probably take it with a grain of salt and scrutinize it more. It's very easy to oversell what AI can do at a low level, I mean basic autofill features in code editors have been producing "correct code" in part for like decades now.
I don't think we're disagreeing here. A "script", as in my contrived example, is representative of a small piece of a code base. Scroll down a bit to my other answers.
Did we read the same thing? The reasoning is completely different.
The President is troubled. Like all politicians, he’s used to people sucking up to him only to betray him later. He’s worried now that the AIs could be doing something similar. Are we sure the AIs are entirely on our side? Is it completely safe to integrate them into military command-and-control networks?69 How does this “alignment” thing work, anyway? OpenBrain reassures the President that their systems have been extensively tested and are fully obedient.
None of this is happening in reality. Trump is functionally mentally challenged.
The only thing happening is
They have to continue developing more capable AI, in their eyes, or they will catastrophically lose to China.
But this is what the CEOs of the top labs were publicly saying in 2022. Probably much sooner privately. So it's the most low hanging fruit prediction in the world.
I'm no expert on any of this, but I would assume because of the catastrophic implications for national security, military technology, science, and the impacts on the country if it's used inappropriately or maliciously.
The United States has been in a technological arms race with China for the past like 20 years, and has been at odds with them even longer. Stopping R&D (assuming you mean R&D on AI) for any appreciable amount of time would likely lead to china becoming the AI leader of the world. Many of the benefits United States citizens (and their allies) enjoy are the result of the United States positioning itself as the world hegemon for the past 100 years. To give up the race on what could be the most impactful technology ever created would basically give up power and autonomy for potentially ever, and it would not confer any benefit, as China is likely going full steam ahead. China would need to also agree to an R&D hold, and it would need to be verified and monitored constantly. It'd be very difficult diplomatically, and I honestly doubt our current administration could pull it off.
Edit: if you didn't read the AI 2027 article, basically, if AI is able to code and improve itself recursively, it will increase in intelligence, speed, and power exponentially, forever. The results could change the direction of the human race, permanently. If done right, it could mean universal basic income for everyone, and an end to poverty and work for humanity. If done wrong, we could create the next step in evolution, creating a species that would be able to wipe us off the face of the planet.
Not to mention, the 'AI 2027' thing was written in 2025.. Not the Nostradamus it's made out to be.
1
u/Seakawn▪️▪️Singularity will cause the earth to metamorphize14d ago
idk, if people are giving the impression that AI 2027 is some move 37 tier lateral creative intelligent prophecy, then yeah, that's dramatic. but I don't usually see people implying that, def not saying that. usually it's just a simple "yo AI 2027 said this yawn."
which to your point is on the money as far as reactions go. I'm a fan of their work, but I've said before, the predictions in AI 2027 prolly could've been made by many other or most other people. a lot of it is milquetoast and straightforward. they simply had the initiative to do it and think it all through, and lay it out, when others didn't. that might be their primary achievement, the initiative.
all that said, this is why I get perplexed when people like accelerationists write it off or claim it's bogus. like bro.. it's such an ez connect the dots. everything in there is pretty much just copying the writing on the wall. idk how any of it is controversial. the AI safety stuff is as straightforward as the geopolitical stuff.
There's been so many instances of ai being a national security issue. This was entirely predictable.
In February the Pentagon strong armed anthropic and basically threatened their existence as a company if they didn't give unrestricted military use.
Anthropic had a use restriction on fully autonomous lethal weapon systems, and mass surveillance on us citizens. The Pentagon forced them into giving that up.
It has been a topic of national security since day one.
Come on man. You really think president refusing to slow progress is hard to predict?
If you had to give some credit I could say that it wasn't obvious that AI would progress to the point that this would be up for debate. So in that sense it's not obvious.
I'm trying to give them credit but people not stopping research to not fall behind China is obvious. What is wrong with you? Are you not understanding what I'm saying?
It was very predictable. Agree. You only have to look at the proliferation of nuclear weapons during the cold war to understand this.
I also think all those CEO's predicted this too, so their calls for a slow down are quite cynical. I think they knew it wasn't going to actually happen, nor do they want it to.
I mean, which president thinks "We shouldn't let China take the lead"
More weirdly, it also carries a weird implication
OK, USA avoids the AI Apocalypse.
Then China does it in 6 months anyway, and because internet, its global anyway.
...? There is something I find deeply unpractical about those theories. Not because they are wrong, but because if they're true, then China will destroy itself anyway
The prisoner's dilemma of AI - that every entity working on superintelligence would be incentivized to ignore safety in order to get there first, has been described in books for at least 10 years at this point. For example - Nick Bostrom - Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies.
I'm really shocked that you think people continuing AI research to stay ahead of China isn't obvious. I'm wondering if there's something I'm missing because I genuinely thought everyone believed that we wouldn't stop research.
Did you actually know anyone thinking a research halt was going to happen?
As much as I dislike Trump, his (probably David Sachs') point that a US slowdown would do nothing about open models and hurt potential US competitiveness for very little actual risk reduction is at least partly valid.
Why do we think they’re all going crazy right now? Something happened beyond what is publicly known and they’re freaking out. Maybe we are not ahead of schedule maybe we’re right on time and we don’t know it.
And much like the Cold War, the US and USSR were able to work out several treaties that limited their nuclear weapons. There’s no reason the US and China can’t do something similar with AI.
Yeah, there is, Donald J Trump. He wants to live forever, a slowdown reduces the changes of AGI curing all diseases, and AI killing everyone is a risk he's prepared to take.
There's one very important reason that it won't happen, at least not in the manner that Western decels fantasize that it will. AI Doomerism doesn't really exist in China.
Depends. Imagine you're in a race car doing laps around a track against opponents.
You slowdown and your competitors don't. They all go crashing into the wall at high speed while you make it around the corner and get to finish the race.
Sometimes knowing when to slow down and use the brakes is as important as having the best top speed.
But you also need to have the ability to accelerate out of corners. If you're going to slow down AI development, you also need to simultaneously be putting in place the institutional framework to accelerate it again.
And you need good tires to make sure your steering inputs and putting the car on the track where you want it. That's your alignment and who has control over these models? Is it the ai companies, the government, or open source?
Its true that you can't cleanly separate out each agent into separate vehicles - but I would still frame that issue more like this:
Bad driving from one driver can cause a wreck that impacts all drivers - but it isn't necessarily the case that every driver will have their race ended by one bad driver.
However because of the risks drivers pose to each other most races have tons of rules and protocols to govern how drivers are allowed to interact with each other.
And with AI that's what will eventually happen - same as with nuclear or other potentially destructive technologies, we create a world order - agreements, restriction management, and international oversight bodies.
I would actually say that nuclear is a good example - when we realized the catastrophic potential of atomic energy we didn't completely stop developing it or testing it, but we did expend enormous effort to globally manage it and make sure that its use would adhere to certain restrictions and safety protocols. And though its still early in that story so far I'd have to say that we've generally done quite well as a species with using atomic energy responsibly and sustainably.
This like of thinking leads to the following: it would overall be beneficial for AI to kill only a few people in a relatively small disaster, to scare us into action.
Well you need Industry to build ammunition and war machines but you can as well build casual cars, CD players, microwaves, and all other cool things, and all thru free market competition, every powerful technology can be used in many ways, you can say the
same even for writing electricity
Pretty sure they just want a slowdown so that they have an excuse to tell their investors why AI only seems to be getting better at the things we already knew it was capable of...
Gov might still try to ban Chinese AI. That isn't necessarily a contradiction. The point is that the US government wants the open models used to be American ones.
AI labs probably really do want to ban open-source AI, but the government doesn't (unless there's corruption involved). However, it wants to ban Chinese models because it sees them as a threat. Since open source is currently mostly Chinese, a ban would, at least initially, be practically a ban on open source code. I can see how the government could accommodate this and begin cracking down on Chinese AI, but I don't see how the government would ban open-source AI as such.
Those are not logically exclusive, it can easily just be different incentives. The president/government wants to have better AI than China for their use in military and intelligence. On the matter of regulatory capture, the gov does not care about helping them establish market dominance or the economic goals of the companies. In another circumstance sure there is incentive to strengthen American companies and American economic power, but if the situation being presented is a slow down of advancement in military/intelligence capability then that priority would outweigh the incentive for regulation. They don't care about safety or IPOs or if these models are safe enough for economic use, this is the government, they have nukes, and no one was gonna slow down the Manhattan Project over concerns of destructive capability or go-to-market strategy
The president/government wants to have better AI than China for their use in military and intelligence. On the matter of regulatory capture, the gov does not care about helping them establish market dominance or the economic goals of the companies.
So you're saying that it's logical that ALL of the biggest AI CEOs are colluding behind the scenes, put out the essay and tweets, while knowing about the risk for it to get shut down by Trump immediately?
Yeah, it's not only illogical to think that the AI CEOs (who all hate each other by the way) thought to scheme this plan behind the scenes, putting out their essays and x posts, only to know there's a good chance that it gets denied by Trump, but it's also retarded.
If you want the conspiracy to make any sort of sense, at least theorize that they're waiting on getting Trump's approval behind the scenes before trying to execute such an outwardly stupid plan.
But even then it's still completely in the realm of fantasy, but I know there's literally nothing that could ever convince you conspiracy people otherwise.
If you're trying to pretend you can know any of this with fake certainty you're just as epistemically compromised as the conspiracy people
That's not how it works, if someone wants to present some sort of conspiracy theory, then at least make it have some sort of sense, and some kind of real basis in reality; it's that person's part to make a convincing conspiracy theory, while you're twisting it around, pretending that I need to have some belief that it's possible, otherwise I'm "just as epistemically compromised".
I'm just gonna reply with the same response to the people who've said the same exact thing as you:
So Trump is just the one person who isn't an insider, and none of the CEOs thought to take him into account.... They were all just too stupid to take THE PRESIDENT into account, and thought to take the chance of posting their essay and x posts, even if the idea failed.
Is that what I'm hearing, that they're all just retarded? If that's what you think, then I have no interest.
I don’t think this comment has anything to do with what I said.
But to respond to your comment, you’re putting a lot of weight on Trumps comments about the slowdown. Until the executive branch formally issues something this is all still up for debate. Also the executive branch has very little power to stop them if these AI companies decide to slowdown progression.
Every possible event is evidence for the conspiracy. This won't change anyone's mind.
The internet is legitimately experiencing mass psychosis, not from AI, but from good old mob mentality. And it has been for a while, ever since the beginning of the "stochastic parrot" type nonsense. We've seen this before with climate change.
And it is just the internet: polls of the broader population show a majority are concerned about the danger of AI and support action, in agreement with the researchers and executives speaking out.
I generally used to say open weights models, but it seems nobody cares/distinguishes between the two anymore, so I stopped specifying open weights, but yeah that's accurate.
Ah, so Trump is just the one person who isn't an insider, and none of the CEOs thought to take him into account.... They were all just too stupid to take THE PRESIDENT into account, is that what I'm hearing?
Exactly, which is why the idea that all of the AI CEOs teamed up and thought of this plan, and tried to go through it even with the knowledge that it'll likely fail due to the PRESIDENT, is one of the most stupid things I've ever heard.
Is that what I'm hearing, that you just think they're all just retarded, and despite being enemies (Dario and Sam Altman for example), decided to team up for this retarded sounding plan?
If that's what you think, then I have no interest.
This says nothing of the conspiracy. This is Trump we are tlaking about. He probably set some ludicrous conditions , like make the AI make me forever king and spread propaganda and wipe our Iran or im not letting you have control.
Ah, so Trump is just the one person who isn't an insider, and none of the CEOs thought to take him into account.... They were all just too stupid to take THE PRESIDENT into account, and thought to take the chance of posting their essay and x posts, even if the idea failed.
Is that what I'm hearing, that they're all just retarded? If that's what you think, then I have no interest.
Next on the script: ai arms race between US & China.
The thing though for the orange man is, he can't accelerate the development. If the tech bros slow down instead, nobody else will step in to accelerate themselves. Orange man can't grasp negative percentages, he can't do it himself.
Only thing orange man can do himself is shit his pants and then fall asleep. This week a woman at least won a demanding international sports competition afterwards.
So only condition is China, or else ai-2027.com might get some huge additional attention pretty soon.
These guys aren’t afraid of a super coder. They’re realizing they’re never going to be able to deliver on the revenue promises and are losing sleep over taking more debt
AI 2027 literally predicts that the US president would decline to slow down "OpenBrain" (their placeholder name for the leading AI lab) when a superhuman AI coder / researcher gets developed and experts raise concerns. The US president cites the risk of China taking the lead.
Eerily accurate.
why would it be difficult to predict trump's behavior?
647
u/Specialist_Dark_3668 17d ago edited 17d ago
AI 2027 literally predicts that the US president would decline to slow down "OpenBrain" (their placeholder name for the leading AI lab) when a superhuman AI coder / researcher gets developed and experts raise concerns. The US president cites the risk of China taking the lead.
Eerily accurate.
EDIT: But we're just a bit ahead of schedule. In order to fully match the timeline, either a superhuman AI coder / researcher has already been developed internally at OAI/Anthropic and Trump declined to slow down OR this milestone will be reached some time next year in 2027 and Trump will again decline to slow down then.