1. It's not inevitable. 2. Those that see AI as an existential risk don't generally think it's a guarantee, but if it's say a 5% chance then that's worth addressing/mitigating. 3. That's not what this article was even about.

▲ kubb 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Sounds like the burden is on you to explain either

  1. If you're not treating my claim as a black box, explain explicitly what is your model of what the article was about? Are you aware, for example of the last paragraph of the article? I think that WAS what the article was about. Do you have specific opinions on e.g. how I went wrong and where my model differs?
  2. If you are treating it as a black box, what's your default expectation based on the law of Nothing Ever Happens?

Just kidding, you don't need to explain anything. A"I" fearmongers should though.

	▲	adleyjulian 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The point of the article is that people are historically bad at predicting when exponential curves plateau, even if they're correct that there will be a plateau. This does not imply the inevitability of AGI. It does not imply AGI is necessarily bad. It does mean that "the capabilities of AI will eventually plateau" offers no meaningful predictive power or relevance to the overall AI discussion.