[Whenever discussing when AGI will come, it bears repeating: If anyone builds AGI, everyone dies; no one knows when AGI will be made, whether soon or late; a bunch of people and orgs are trying to make it; and they should stop and be stopped.]
Arguments for fast AGI progress
Many arguments about "when will AGI come" focus on reasons to think progress will continue quickly, such as:
Line go up.
Researchers can pivot to address new obstacles and ditch dead ends.
AI can be used to accelerate AI research.
We're over a threshold of economic returns, such that AI research will permanently see much more investment than before.
Intuition pumps for being close to AGI
These are all valid and truly worrying. But, to say anything specific and confident about when (in clock time) AGI will come, we'd also have to know how fast progress is being made in an absolute sense; specifically, in an absolute sense as measured by "how much of what you need to make AGI do you have".
There are various intuition pumps / analogies that people use to inform their sense of how far AI research has come. For example:
AI is like a child developing. Progress is made incrementally and continually; each year brings a new quantity and quality of progress that builds on but transcends the previous. We match AI capabilities to the age of a human with the closest capabilities set. We find that AI grows by 2 years per year (or something), is currently approximately a grad student, and will soon be a leading researcher. Some months later it becomes mildly superhuman.
AI is like brains and neurons. We need a bunch of compute power. We measure how much computing power we have against how much computing power a brain uses. We calculate tradeoffs between performance gains from algorithmic progress vs. from more compute. When we have enough effective compute, we get human level AI or beyond.
AI is like an employee. At first it is not even worth the time to manage it; then it is helpful on some narrow tasks; then it can do a wide range of common / low-ish skill tasks, with questionable reliability; then it becomes reliable for easy things and starts contributing on difficult tasks and becomes economically valuable; then it starts replacing whole jobs; then it starts replacing whole companies / sectors; then it starts generating new sectors.
AI is like a student. We feed it more training data and run more reps; it gets higher test scores; once it performs like the very best students, it becomes ready to do real research.
I believe these are poor intuition pumps for understanding when AGI comes because they do not evoke the sense that there is some unknown, probably-large blob of complexity that one has to possess in order to make AGI. They paper over differences in how the AI system does what it does.
Synthetic life as an intuition pump
Intuition pumps can only go so far. Each domain has its own central complexities, and there's no good reason that the world has to present a deeply correct analogy for the development of AGI, and in fact I'm not aware of such. That said, as long as we're doing intuition pumps, I want to propose another intuition pump for timelines on progress on a very complex task: synthetic life. We use the analogy:
human minds : AGI :: natural bacteria : synthetic bacteria
Specifically, we can compare the general task of making AGI (which, to be clear, is a ~maximally bad thing to do) as analogous to:
the task of producing, artificially from scratch, a bacterium-like object that has all the impressive capabilities of biotic bacteria, such as growing and dividing, self-repairing, avoiding toxins and predators, evolving novel complex characteristics to perform well in many different niches, competing against other life for space and resources, etc., but that is "very unlike" natural bacteria / is produced "very independently from" natural bacteria.
Some things I like about this analogy
There are big blobs of algorithmic complexity / understanding / ideas. Specifically, there's the genome. More abstractly, there's the ideas in the genome (e.g. chemical pathways, abstracted from specific enzymes).
Evolution poured a huge amount of experimentation into getting that big blob of ideas.
That big blob of ideas is not fully accessible / usable for us, just because we can read it off in some form.
We can read a bacterial genome, or a brain connectome, but that doesn't mean we can design another bacterium / mind that uses those ideas (except in a pretty narrow cheaty way, at best). (I think this is less true for synlife, because we really do understand somewhat more about genomes compared to minds, and can extract more abstract ideas from genomes compared to from, say, connectomes. It's far from a perfect analogy.)
We know that evolution worked by selection on variation in the DNA sequence. But that doesn't mean we can get evolution's results:
Doing it evolution's way is crazy slow / compute intensive.
It's not easy to get ahold of evolution's training signal; the training signal is complex, subtle, and high compute. Poor replacements for that signal get incremental gains but don't get the deeper gains.
The big blob of ideas contains a bunch of superfluous stuff: Redundant mechanisms, random damage / suboptimal settings, functional but kinda arbitrary choices (with lots of similarly good alternatives), mechanisms with unnecessary functions.
Therefore, we expect to have much less total work to do than evolution did in evolving bacteria. (And AI researchers have much less total work than evolution for making human minds.)
However, we expect to have some large amount of total work to do.
And, we cannot tell which is which.
And, the fact that we can think/design/experiment/compress more abstractly and efficiently than evolution, and can avoid a bunch of the work, does not say that much about how close we are, because the default is that there's a big blob that you have to invent.
Just because we could bypass a bunch of algorithmic complexity, doesn't mean we magically do so. You'd still have to figure out how to do so.
Retreating to "bitter-lesson" type arguments/plans also retreats away from arguments that we're doing things more efficiently than evolution.
It's not exactly clear what counts as success, but it feels like there's some big accomplishment or bundle of big accomplishments that would qualify, and a bunch of cool-but-not-successful things one could do.
(I think this is more true in the case of synthetic life than AGI. For AGI, we basically mean "controls the lightcone". For synthetic life, we could mean various things like "is made from entirely synthetic elements (as opposed to just synthetic DNA inserted into a living cell)" or "doesn't use any normal proteins" or "doesn't use DNA" or similar. It's far from a perfect analogy.)
There are counterintuitive progress curves.
There are things that sound like huge progress / most of the way there, but they don't necessarily imply that you're anywhere near some later milestone.
For example, in 2010 the J. Craig Venter Institute produced a "synthetic cell" (that is, a cell whose genome was synthesized by stitching together chemically assembled DNA segments). In 2016, they did the same thing but they also deleted a bunch of DNA, "making it the smallest genome of any self-replicating organism". But how far off are the more ambitious versions? Who knows.
In particular, because the work of designing genes (chemical pathways, regulatory networks, growth and division programs, etc.) is copied and not actually performed, you have that the final performance is perfectly real (the cell-with-synthetic-genome really lives; the LLM really can program computers (for some tasks)) but is weirdly non-indicative of the designer's ability to design powerful artifacts.
Alphafold is some sort of big advance. But does it mean you're about to get synthetic life, just because suddenly a bunch of protein folding questions went from IDK / costly to measure, to a very cheap pretty-good guess? I doubt it. There's still a ton of design work.
In general, you can get various sigmoids at different times, of different sizes, and of different frequency (thence, different smoothness after being all added up together).
There are ways to "cheat".
For AGI, there's brain uploading, or neuromorphic AI / partial uploading.
For synthetic life, there's e.g. JCVI's strategy of copying existing genomes.
It's unclear how to point at specific "blockers", but there are definitely blockers, which you can tell because we aren't running around using drugs manufactured inside synthetic alien bacteria / running around being dead from AGI.
One could easily imagine the familiar game of "goalpost moving" in this setting. E.g.:
A: What can SynLife2026 not do? How do you know it's "not really life"? What's the least impressive thing you think it won't do next year?
B: Sheesh, IDK. I mean, it can't process fructose right now...
A: [a few months later] Aha! This new paper has an oil blob with some enzymes in it that can process fructose!
It gives some sense for why benchmarks are hard to interpret / don't necessarily say all that much.
For example, you could imagine someone creating a type of lipid that
the free forms gradually stick to each other more and more,
forms micelles or liposomes when aggregated,
and splits into multiple liposomes.
Is this progress towards synthetic life? Surely it's some kind of progress. How much? How can you tell?
You could make impressive videos, where the lipid-micelle-splitting video looks intuitively much more like life than what we had previously. This doesn't actually tell you very much though.
It gives some sense for why "the bitter lesson" doesn't say all that much. Sure, phage-assisted continuous evolution is very cool and outperforms human designers at least in some cases—but that doesn't really bear on whether you can just point PACE at "make synthetic life". You're still confused, just at a higher level.
It's genuinely very unclear when it will happen. Maybe someone will announce something that seems like true synthetic life next year, but probably not; or maybe it will take 20 years or 50 years or more.
There are plenty of ways to make substantial, legible, incremental progress on various benchmarks and subtasks.
E.g., you could invent enzymes to mimic yet another biochemical pathway or something. How much this contributes to progress on the overall task is unclear.
Pointing at line go up isn't that much of an argument because the issue is that you're probably pointing at the wrong lines and you haven't explained why your line is a / the right line.
A lot of goodharty ways of making progress don't really contribute much at all. It's not obvious, on the face of it, what the difference between goodharting and non-goodharting would be, but it's definitely a thing.
The profile of capabilities is weird.
There's no natural bacterium with a profile of capabilities (chemical processing, resource acquisition, locomotion, defense, repair, growth) that corresponds at all well to the capabilities profile of SynLife2026 overall or of any particular instance of quasi-synthetic-life.
You can point to supernatural capabilities of synlife in several areas. Maybe many specific artificial chemical processing pathways are much faster / more efficient / less expensive / higher purity than biological pathways.
Crosspost from my blog.
[Previously: "Views on when AGI comes and on strategy to reduce existential risk", "Do confident short timelines make sense?"]
[Whenever discussing when AGI will come, it bears repeating: If anyone builds AGI, everyone dies; no one knows when AGI will be made, whether soon or late; a bunch of people and orgs are trying to make it; and they should stop and be stopped.]
Arguments for fast AGI progress
Many arguments about "when will AGI come" focus on reasons to think progress will continue quickly, such as:
Intuition pumps for being close to AGI
These are all valid and truly worrying. But, to say anything specific and confident about when (in clock time) AGI will come, we'd also have to know how fast progress is being made in an absolute sense; specifically, in an absolute sense as measured by "how much of what you need to make AGI do you have".
There are various intuition pumps / analogies that people use to inform their sense of how far AI research has come. For example:
I believe these are poor intuition pumps for understanding when AGI comes because they do not evoke the sense that there is some unknown, probably-large blob of complexity that one has to possess in order to make AGI. They paper over differences in how the AI system does what it does.
Synthetic life as an intuition pump
Intuition pumps can only go so far. Each domain has its own central complexities, and there's no good reason that the world has to present a deeply correct analogy for the development of AGI, and in fact I'm not aware of such. That said, as long as we're doing intuition pumps, I want to propose another intuition pump for timelines on progress on a very complex task: synthetic life. We use the analogy:
Specifically, we can compare the general task of making AGI (which, to be clear, is a ~maximally bad thing to do) as analogous to:
Some things I like about this analogy