Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Forecasting AI Progress: Evidence from a Survey of Machine Learning Researchers

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2206.04132 v1 pith:Z7FIL775 submitted 2022-06-08 cs.CY

classification cs.CY
keywords machineintelligenceresearcherssurveyforecastsprogressdevelopmentgrace
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are shaping modern life, from transportation, health care, science, finance, to national defense. Forecasts of AI development could help improve policy- and decision-making. We report the results from a large survey of AI and machine learning (ML) researchers on their beliefs about progress in AI. The survey, fielded in late 2019, elicited forecasts for near-term AI development milestones and high- or human-level machine intelligence, defined as when machines are able to accomplish every or almost every task humans are able to do currently. As part of this study, we re-contacted respondents from a highly-cited study by Grace et al. (2018), in which AI/ML researchers gave forecasts about high-level machine intelligence and near-term milestones in AI development. Results from our 2019 survey show that, in aggregate, AI/ML researchers surveyed placed a 50% likelihood of human-level machine intelligence being achieved by 2060. The results show researchers newly contacted in 2019 expressed similar beliefs about the progress of advanced AI as respondents in the Grace et al. (2018) survey. For the recontacted participants from the Grace et al. (2018) study, the aggregate forecast for a 50% likelihood of high-level machine intelligence shifted from 2062 to 2076, although this change is not statistically significant, likely due to the small size of our panel sample. Forecasts of several near-term AI milestones have reduced in time, suggesting more optimism about AI progress. Finally, AI/ML researchers also exhibited significant optimism about how human-level machine intelligence will impact society.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 22 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Why do Experts Disagree on Existential Risk and P(doom)? A Survey of AI Experts

    cs.CY 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    AI experts split into tool and agent worldviews, and lower familiarity with AI safety concepts correlates with lower concern about catastrophic risk.

  2. The human biological advantage over AI

    cs.AI 2025-09 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    The paper claims that biological emotion, made possible by the human central nervous system, is the unique basis for ethical leadership that AI cannot replicate.

Pith tools