&gt; <i>Lol. I guess we don&#x27;t need college education as well then, there&#x27;s education happening in the comments to some extent. We don&#x27;t need traditional means of news, there&#x27;s news happening on Twitter to some extent. I could go on with analogous line of reasoning.</i><p>That&#x27;s a straw man. I did say it&#x27;s the fringe and it needs to be tested. I didn&#x27;t say one should replace the other. Peer-review is essentially just mutual corrections, and there are mutual corrections happening in the comments, just not as thoroughly as when it&#x27;s institutionalized. Most of it is not new anyway, but just summarizes research results and draws logical conclusions from it (for example this [1]). If it wasn&#x27;t all brought together on LW, I possibly wouldn&#x27;t have found out about the wealth of knowledge for a long time.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;papers.nips.cc&#x2F;paper&#x2F;2716-bayesian-inference-in-spiking-neurons.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;papers.nips.cc&#x2F;paper&#x2F;2716-bayesian-inference-in-spiki...</a><p>&gt; <i>a) Keywords: &quot;If&quot;, &quot;Seems&quot; b) Tons of assumptions in that scenario you laid out. If you can&#x27;t see it, I&#x27;m sorry but you&#x27;re already too far gone. c) Basically, what you&#x27;ve done is precisely the kind of utter crap that LW perpetuates. &quot;If x keeps happening&quot; without providing any reason as to why that would be true.</i><p>It&#x27;s very logical. My certainty referred to the implication, but it is hard, of course, to come up with a prior for that &#x27;if&#x27;: Exponential progress could continue in various ways, e.g. by invention of more energy efficient chips and by scaling them up, by 3D circuitry, molecular assemblers, memristors, or perhaps quantum computing. There are contradicting studies, so one should put P(Moore&#x27;s law continues for another 10-20 yrs) at perhaps 50%. So, of course, this is all hedged behind this prior (which I think many people get confused by). The discussion is always concerned with implications which can be made with fairly solid reasoning, by assuming that P(..) above to be 100%.<p>&gt; <i>Make some ridiculous simplifications &quot;complexity is limited by ___&quot;, nature often does __ because ___. You basically don&#x27;t provide any rational reason for why you think AI will be super intelligent and even if it were, why that would be risky.</i><p>That&#x27;s just a basic assumptions which I find plausible, and which some respectable and knowledgeable persons find plausible too (for example Stephen Wolfram and Mark Tegmark; I am aware that appeal to authority is difficult to argue from, but both have publications which I could also refer to). I agree that mentioning the complexity limitations didn&#x27;t provide any information because they don&#x27;t tell us whether it makes it simple enough for us to understand, it merely says that the complexity is not infinite, so I should have left it out entirely. But this is not at all representative for the best contents on LW, it was poor reasoning on my behalf. Bostrom&#x27;s book Superintelligence gives a pretty good summary about why it is thought to be plausible.<p>&gt; <i>You pick numbers out of a hat (10-40 years to come).</i><p>That&#x27;s based on estimates of the processing power required for brain simulations by IBM researchers and Ray Kurzweil. Simple extrapolation of Moore&#x27;s law shows us that we will reach that point roughly between 2019 and 2025. 40 years is just my bet based on what I know about brain models and current obstacles in AI.