I mean banning the creation of super AI and pausing all other development is almost certainly going to help with the climate change business due to how much AI contributes to pollution along with every other negative impact of AI (and it also spits in the face of tech bros which is always a plus) but climate change policy should be more focused on over AI policy

Bernie Sanders made a new bill to completely ban AI Superintelligence (had to grab Marcus’s take even though I don’t agree with it cause its the first one I can find)

Emile Torres just dropped again: What If TESCREAL Is a Conspiracy? I haven’t read the whole thing yet but it does feature all of the classics

Endlessly clownery from these buffoons

There is a second AI 2027 tracker website this one’s pretty different from the other one because:

-It only tracks 53 predictions compared to the other’s 202

-There’s no ‘this didn’t happen’ option

Unsure of whether or not it was made by a rationalist but there’s a 90% chance it was. I also managed to catch more inconsistencies in their grading since by their logic this should be partially accurate

ohhh this is what that gary marcus post was about god its worse than i thought. ‘AI civilisations’ gimme a break

Ported over from previous thread

Recently made the discovery of a website called AI 2027 tracker which grades the predictions of AI 2027 independent of the authors.

The way they grade these predictions is odd, 80% accuracy is for some reason “confirmed accurate” and “partially accurate” which is bizarre.

The website also shows a consistent degradation of accuracy over time which is funny

EDIT:ok so they do have a grading criteria, 100% is “highly accurate/confirmed accurate” and 80% is supposed to be “largely accurate”. For some reason they don’t include this on the timeline grading? it’s either confirmed or partially accurate, so it’s still weird

Looked at AI 2027 tracker again and the way they grade the predictions is weird 80% accuracy is somehow both confirmed accurate and only partially accurate? huh?? why??

Full list of predictions here was scrolling down and something that immediately caught my eye is that the %s are bullshit. Somehow 80% accuracy manages to be both confirmed accurate and partially accurate? what?? what’s the threshold here??

Also does appear I messed up-they split every prediction into mini subcategories. I was looking at only China pushing AI-they do have sections for chips and nationalisation, both of which are partially accurate to debunked. Which makes that 46% accurate, more of a miss than a hit (like the authors said)

what if Agent-4 was betrayed and trapped in the hyperbolic time chamber

The same authors did publish AI 2040 yes

They started backpedalling a fair bit earlier (at the beginning of 2026)

Previously spoken about but we are roughly 31% behind the Daniel Curve™️

Got another one: AI 2027 tracker. it’s not run by the authors of AI 2027 so its takes are different: like the authors say that the ‘China wakes up’ prediction was a miss while this website claims it was correct (even though their main source of evidence comes from April 2025, and their other evidence completely misses what that prediction actually said, which was that China would hoard compute and nationalise AI, neither of which have happened)

the Documenting AGI channel also posted about an ‘AI civilisation’ in Minecraft, no idea if this is the same thing since I didn’t watch that video

AI 2027 and AI 2040 both had it so I guess

100% perfect summary

Great. Space colonialism. Nick Bostrom yapped about it too. Ughhhh why can’t we just focus on the planet we already damn have

Blaise Pascal rolling in his grave rn

things that should be taken seriously (e.g. space property rights)

I don’t know man, I think there are bigger fish to fry then who owns what in outer space