Do you have a source on aggregate predictions of experts being drastically wrong?

I.e. the AI 2027 guys were memed for being AI lunatics on a lot here and they have been pretty on the money in terms of pace of progress accelerating/ gov moving towards nationalization/ coding agents

▲

somenameforme 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No they haven't. They've even 'officially' declared that their AI apocalypse has been postponed to another date [1], just out of reach, but close enough to be scary. Though in the quotes there the doomsayers are also already pre-hedging for why AI 2030 also won't come to pass.

[1] - https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/breaking-the-ai-2027-dooms...

▲

Retric 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do you have specific and objective examples of things people got right?

From my perspective there’s very slow but very real progress happening in the AI space. I see people making wild predictions in both directions, but in terms of actual unsupervised utility there’s definitely progress abet wildly slower than most hype.

▲

frognumber 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This was their prediction for 2026:

"The bet of using AI to speed up AI research is starting to pay off.

OpenBrain continues to deploy the iteratively improving Agent-1 internally for AI R&D. Overall, they are making algorithmic progress 50% faster than they would without AI assistants—and more importantly, faster than their competitors. The AI R&D progress multiplier: what do we mean by 50% faster algorithmic progress?

Several competing publicly released AIs now match or exceed Agent-0, including an open-weights model. OpenBrain responds by releasing Agent-1, which is more capable and reliable.28

People naturally try to compare Agent-1 to humans, but it has a very different skill profile. It knows more facts than any human, knows practically every programming language, and can solve well-specified coding problems extremely quickly. On the other hand, Agent-1 is bad at even simple long-horizon tasks, like beating video games it hasn’t played before. Still, the common workday is eight hours, and a day’s work can usually be separated into smaller chunks; you could think of Agent-1 as a scatterbrained employee who thrives under careful management.29 Savvy people find ways to automate routine parts of their jobs.30

OpenBrain’s executives turn consideration to an implication of automating AI R&D: security has become more important. In early 2025, the worst-case scenario was leaked algorithmic secrets; now, if China steals Agent-1’s weights, they could increase their research speed by nearly 50%.31 OpenBrain’s security level is typical of a fast-growing ~3,000 person tech company, secure only against low-priority attacks from capable cyber groups (RAND’s SL2).32 They are working hard to protect their weights and secrets from insider threats and top cybercrime syndicates (SL3),33 but defense against nation states (SL4&5) is barely on the horizon."

https://ai-2027.com/

That's precisely where we are.

This is eerie. It's like a time traveler. The only delta is Anthropic is in the role of OpenAI.

▲

gensym an hour ago | parent [-]

So you think Anthropic is using internal AI assistants to pull away from competitors and the leapfrogging we've seen over the last several years is now done?

That seems to me to be the most concrete and least obvious prediction in the quoted text.

I don't think that's happening. If that were generally accepted as true I would expect OpenAI to be unable to successfully IPO.

	▲	knollimar an hour ago \| parent [-]
		We wait for gemini 3.5 pro and cope?

▲

MattRix 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The idea that progress is “slow” in the AI space is absurd. These are some of the fastest growing products and companies of all time. The models are still improving a surprising amount.

▲

dotdi 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's not that absolute progress is slow, it's extremely slow compared to the predictions. It might be fast in absolute terms, but the "50% of coders will be obsolete by 2023" has been renewed every six months, and it's becoming increasingly clear that there's a real chance it might not ever happen.

	▲	mirekrusin an hour ago \| parent [-]
		„Coders being obsolete” is not a measure of AI capabilities. I see coders being more busy than ever before. I see people without coding knowledge getting more behind. The gap is widening, not shrinking.

▲

Retric 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I suspected you felt that way even though it hasn’t been my personal experience.

I’ve heard people say older models can’t do X, when I used that way etc. I suspect people are applying their own learning curve as part of their assessment of progress, you get better at writing prompts and it feels like the model improved.

Which is why I’m saying we need some objective metrics to judge predictions of actual capacity.

▲

7777332215 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The AI companies are trying to manufacture the appearance of what they foretold before it all falls apart horribly.