Claim and evidence Close ×
Bostrom's paper of 2003, in the revised version on the author's site, states that the transition from roughly human-level artificial intelligence to full superintelligence may be very rapid, perhaps a matter of days rather than years, and names this possibility the singularity hypothesis. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Stated in source Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source
Date 2003 · publication Records dated 2003 → Wording attested 2003-08-06. Read in the 'slightly revised version' on the author's site. The cross-family check of 2026-10-31 found the days-rather-than-years wording, in substance, in an archive capture of the author's page of 6 August 2003; the printed proceedings were not obtained. Role Articulation Register (kind of text) Nonfiction Scope and limits A statement of possibility ('may'), not a forecast with a probability, and not evidence that such a transition will occur. Earlier texts on this proposition, among them Creating Friendly AI (2001), are recorded separately.
The evidence 01 primary source Supports the claim
Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence ↗ Author's site (nickbostrom.com); first published in Cognitive, Emotive and Ethical Aspects of Decision Making in Humans and in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 2, ed. I. Smit et al., 2003 · 2003
Archived copy, captured 2003-08-06: Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence ↗
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 “the transition from a state where we have a roughly human-level artificial intelligence to a state where we have full-blown superintelligence, with revolutionary applications, may be very rapid, perhaps a matter of days rather than years” Location in source Section 2, "Superintelligence Is Different", paragraph on the final stage of the transition
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-31
Source details and check notes Authors Nick Bostrom Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 eac7d99f224b72384bc6850a581a3dfda6da21b155ebaa5ba1843a4baf7106b8). Current web page on the author's site, retrieved 2026-10-29; its reference list cites a 2003 edition of Creating Friendly AI, so the page may have been revised after 2003. The cross-family check retrieved it again on 2026-10-31, with the same bytes. The cross-family check of 2026-10-31 found the quoted R01 passage on arbitrary goals and the A4 passage on a transition of days rather than years, in substance, in an archive capture of the author's page of 6 August 2003, which already describes itself as slightly revised. The printed proceedings (pp. 12–17) were not obtained, so this is not a claim that the wording matches them. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-29 Language English (en) Archive copy Open archived copy, captured 2003-08-06: Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence ↗ . An archive copy shows only what the archive retrieved on 2003-08-06. It does not prove what the page said earlier, and it can differ from the copy checked on 2026-10-29.Attribution Nick Bostrom, “Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence”, 2003. 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, arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI (research/risk-debate). The quotation (36 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. A cross-family machine check (2026-10-31, item 78) re-read the record’s source and found the quotation and stance supported. No human editorial review. 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 meets the proposition’s criterion. The record documents what the text states, in its register (fiction and satire are labelled); it is not evidence that the proposition is true and implies no influence on or from another text.
Date. Date of publication, as the source gives it.
Record ID rd-a4-bostrom-2003-ethical-issues