Choose an institution to see its records and dossier, or choose a topic.
Through year 2027 · all records, including scheduled dates 2026 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2008 2005 1965 Show Organisations and infrastructure All types Organisation Person Document Concept Infrastructure Public body Reset filters
94 people, organisations and other records · 122 relationships · 34 claims about a valueEverything recorded up to the chosen year, whether or not still in effect · Undated records included
Claim and evidence Close ×
Hanson, “Foom Debate, Again” (2013-02-18), in “The Hanson-Yudkowsky AI-Foom Debate”, bears on E05. Hanson argues that growth economics, not newly invented categories, should frame the intelligence-explosion question. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Stated in source Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source
Date 2013-02-18 · publication Role Context Register (kind of text) Nonfiction Missing element Says economics should frame the topic; does not say whether it has. Tier Tier 2. Blog debate (2008 Overcoming Bias posts) between an economist and a non-economist: tier 2 as an online debate; the maintainer confirmed tier 2 for the debate on 2026-10-12. Scope and limits A normative claim about which discipline should frame the question, not a record of economics engaging with it. Tier 2. E05 boundary, option A (maintainer decision of 2026-10-15): bears on E05, because it says which field should frame the question, not what economics has or has not done.
The evidence 01 primary source Supports the claim
Foom Debate, Again ↗ Machine Intelligence Research Institute, The Hanson-Yudkowsky AI-Foom Debate (2013) · 2013
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “On the subject of an AI-growth foom, most of those abstractions should come from the field of economic growth.” Location in source "Foom Debate, Again", 18 February 2013, MIRI compilation (2013) ch. 60, post body; pdf p. 514
Machine-checked · 2026-10-16
Source details and check notes Authors Robin Hanson Version Chapter 60 of The Hanson-Yudkowsky AI-Foom Debate (Machine Intelligence Research Institute, 2013), which compiles the 2008 Overcoming Bias debate with later posts; the compilation heads the post with its date. Current MIRI PDF, retrieved 2026-10-11. SHA-256 6b6dfd0416402e1776d7ddcece95298df2df0ed9bc0bd4a6f4bd81c4b1e5102a. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-11 Language English (en) Attribution Robin Hanson, “Foom Debate, Again”, in Machine Intelligence Research Institute, The Hanson-Yudkowsky AI-Foom Debate (2013). Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution. Check notes Candidate pack passage E05-06 (research/economics-mainstream/esoteric). The quotation (19 words) matched the retrieved current copy (SHA-256 6b6dfd0416402e1776d7ddcece95298df2df0ed9bc0bd4a6f4bd81c4b1e5102a) in the pack's verification of 2026-10-15. Re-checked at admission on 2026-10-16 against a copy retrieved that day. Status and meaning Editorial status. Not reviewed by an editor . An exploratory record that no editor has accepted. This status does not say whether a person has read any linked passage. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.
Relation. A passage of the document bears on the proposition without meeting its criterion; the record names the missing element. It is not an articulation and implies no influence.
Date. Post date from the post’s heading in the MIRI compilation of 2013, where the wording was checked; the original page was not retrieved.
Record ID ec-e05-hanson-2013-foom-debate-again-b