Dan Hendrycks: belief

Transcript context

…Yeah. So Okay, great. So I just think new ideas are hard to project. I'll give you my favorite example. In the early twentieth century, everybody thought genes were made of proteins. Somebody even won a Nobel Prize on that premise. They were all wrong. And it took a while for people to figure out that this is wrong. And Oswald Avery did these experiments in the 1940s, really ruled it out and, you know, discovered that by process of elimination that it was DNA. And it didn't take that long to move very fast in molecular biology once people got rid of the bad assumption. I think we're making some bad assumptions, but it's hard to predict when people will move past an EDA fix, which is where I think we are now. I mean, proving that is very hard. I can give a lot of you know, qualitative evidence to point in that direction. But there's at least a possibility that I'm right about that. If we don't have the right set of ideas, it depends on when we come up with new ideas. It could be that we automate the discovery of new ideas, but most of what LLMs have done is not discovery of new ideas. It's really exploiting existing ideas. So I would claim that timelines, there are many paths to it being shorter before 02/1930, for instance, but the picture that you point out of there are these various other cognitive abilities that are long unaddressed and this isn't a cherry picked distribution, this is actually what you would do if you're inspired by cognitive science or psychometrics. I think basically both positions are legitimate, but I think if you'd integrate them, there could be a bullish case that you'll be able to knock off some of this cognitive abilities by the end of the decade. It's not really It's funny you say it. I think that the absolute most bullish, if we want to use that word, case is 20 30. Like in the very fastest case, it'd be 2,030. It would require solving multiple problems that I think we're just not positioned quite yet. I don't think it's very likely, but I think that that's the maximum possible. I just can't get my mind around 20 27. It just does not seem plausible because of the number of problems. And I think also what you said is right. We want to integrate these 2 approaches to make the forecast. And nobody's really quite done that. Maybe that's an adversarialcollaborative collaboration that we could do. I haven't really seen something dig into that side of it, of sort of new discoveries. Maybe your gaps does it a little bit.…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.