One of my reports just sent me a giant design doc that Claude enthusiastically generated packed with plausible looking technical detail. Unfortunately the problem it's trying to solve is completely misguided and we shouldn't be doing it at all. So I'd say as answer to the question posed by this title: a while.
show comments
dwohnitmok
The current HN submission title ("AGI timelines shift with whichever lab is dominant") is very bad. It is neither the title of the article nor is it the thrust of the content.
The title of the article is "How long until AI automates all cognitive labor?"
The main point of the article is summarized by its intro: "Recently, though, I noticed that many great researchers have now published two or more precise forecasts, all using similar definitions of AGI, and all providing confidence intervals. So I was able to visualize how their forecasts changed over time."
The closest the article comes to saying the HN submitted title is:
> And every single person who updated their timelines from January 2026 to April 2026 has moved their timeline to say AGI is coming sooner, myself included.
> So I think the data supports the impression I got from Daniel, Eli, and the AI Futures team. One way I could characterize it is: in the ChatGPT era, people updated towards AI coming sooner. Then in the xAI, Meta, and Gemini era, people updated towards it coming later. Then in the Anthropic era, people updated towards AI coming sooner. Take from that what you will.
show comments
yCombLinks
> The overlapping AGI definition I use here is "Most purely cognitive labor is automatable at better quality, speed, and cost than humans".
That's a poor definition. Nowhere have I seen cheapness as being a requirement to count as AGI. If we have something that can do everything people can do and more, but it costs a lot means it's not AGI?
show comments
knivets
how long until i stop seeing this nonsense shoveled at me from every direction
hidelooktropic
> The overlapping AGI definition I use here is "Most purely cognitive labor is automatable at better quality, speed, and cost than humans". For some of these researchers, saying they use this definitions is a bit of a stretch, but I included everyone who I judged as close enough to be informative.
Seems "AGI" is on the same level as "art" or "love" in that everyone knows what we're talking about but no one can nail down unanimously what it is.
show comments
3raskja
Amodei still predicts 2028, the same year when we'll have full self driving and Mars settlements.
So far all he has is this little code stealing application that could be replaced by git clone and sed for stripping the license.
The times before the Internet when Scientology people had to go into the streets to recruit people were nice. I wish we could put him and his ilk on some Claudology remote island, cut all Internet cables and enjoy the world without dorks and criminals that have been given a megaphone.
show comments
daft_pink
Any chance there is a prediction market for this that we can use, since research has shown they tend to be more accurate than experts?
hodder
It's a specific subtype of Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. They "know" AI cant do their own jobs, but it seems pretty good at summarizing what others do without understanding the nuance. It seems to really apply to the AI Lab CEOs who appear "shocked" everyone isn't simply replaced with LLMs by now so the timelines get kicked.
show comments
aresant
That is an absolutely beautiful infographic and should become the standard for time series change!
The article misses an important clarification for a general audience: current LLM architecture is not AGI by most scientists working on intelligence and cognition, even if its impact is already extraordinary and in many tasks exceeds human performance. AGI implies a broader set of traits.
One of my reports just sent me a giant design doc that Claude enthusiastically generated packed with plausible looking technical detail. Unfortunately the problem it's trying to solve is completely misguided and we shouldn't be doing it at all. So I'd say as answer to the question posed by this title: a while.
The current HN submission title ("AGI timelines shift with whichever lab is dominant") is very bad. It is neither the title of the article nor is it the thrust of the content.
The title of the article is "How long until AI automates all cognitive labor?"
The main point of the article is summarized by its intro: "Recently, though, I noticed that many great researchers have now published two or more precise forecasts, all using similar definitions of AGI, and all providing confidence intervals. So I was able to visualize how their forecasts changed over time."
The closest the article comes to saying the HN submitted title is:
> And every single person who updated their timelines from January 2026 to April 2026 has moved their timeline to say AGI is coming sooner, myself included.
> So I think the data supports the impression I got from Daniel, Eli, and the AI Futures team. One way I could characterize it is: in the ChatGPT era, people updated towards AI coming sooner. Then in the xAI, Meta, and Gemini era, people updated towards it coming later. Then in the Anthropic era, people updated towards AI coming sooner. Take from that what you will.
> The overlapping AGI definition I use here is "Most purely cognitive labor is automatable at better quality, speed, and cost than humans".
That's a poor definition. Nowhere have I seen cheapness as being a requirement to count as AGI. If we have something that can do everything people can do and more, but it costs a lot means it's not AGI?
how long until i stop seeing this nonsense shoveled at me from every direction
> The overlapping AGI definition I use here is "Most purely cognitive labor is automatable at better quality, speed, and cost than humans". For some of these researchers, saying they use this definitions is a bit of a stretch, but I included everyone who I judged as close enough to be informative.
Seems "AGI" is on the same level as "art" or "love" in that everyone knows what we're talking about but no one can nail down unanimously what it is.
Amodei still predicts 2028, the same year when we'll have full self driving and Mars settlements.
So far all he has is this little code stealing application that could be replaced by git clone and sed for stripping the license.
The times before the Internet when Scientology people had to go into the streets to recruit people were nice. I wish we could put him and his ilk on some Claudology remote island, cut all Internet cables and enjoy the world without dorks and criminals that have been given a megaphone.
Any chance there is a prediction market for this that we can use, since research has shown they tend to be more accurate than experts?
It's a specific subtype of Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. They "know" AI cant do their own jobs, but it seems pretty good at summarizing what others do without understanding the nuance. It seems to really apply to the AI Lab CEOs who appear "shocked" everyone isn't simply replaced with LLMs by now so the timelines get kicked.
That is an absolutely beautiful infographic and should become the standard for time series change!
somewhat relevant longread:
https://paoloanzn.github.io/2026/04/26/agi-will-always-be-on...
The article misses an important clarification for a general audience: current LLM architecture is not AGI by most scientists working on intelligence and cognition, even if its impact is already extraordinary and in many tasks exceeds human performance. AGI implies a broader set of traits.