> Not proof, but a high bar for evidence that we may be in that explosion now.

I agree, that's why I said "we're seeing things we have working towards this". I think that the "jagged intelligence" that is often used to describe our curent models is confusing a lot of people. On the one hand you have models failing basic "trick" questions that a 5yo would get, but on the other hand you also have models that write better/faster kernels that can run faster/better models, and are currently used to improve the next generation (via dataset prep, filtering, RL environment creation/curation and so on).

I don't think it's a knock on the original prediction to say it didn't turn out to be true. In fact, at the time it probably felt like a pretty conservative prediction. That being said, if you think back to the year 2000, we were pretty far from building such a machine at that time.

To me it's an interesting lesson in how hard it is to predict technology advances which still applies to our own predictions of the future.

The twentieth century is in the past.

Are you confusing 20th century with 2000s?

>>> It is more probable than not that, within the twentieth century, an ultraintelligent machine will be built and that it will be the last invention that man need make, since it will lead to an “intelligence explosion.”

>> Well, that didn't happen.

> Predictions are not false because their claims are not in the past yet.

"Within the twentieth century" places it definitely in the past, and definitely false.