Claim and evidence Close ×
Chalmers's paper of 2010 sets out the argument that, once there is AI of greater than human intelligence, an intelligence explosion will follow to AI far beyond human level, and states that 'within years' would not be an unreasonable timeframe for that step, while stipulating 'within decades' as the conservative reading. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Stated in source Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source
Date 2010 · publication Records dated 2010 → Role Context Register (kind of text) Nonfiction Missing element A short period: the paper suggests “within years” for the step to AI++ and takes “within decades” as its conservative reading; “within days” is reported as what some would suggest. Scope and limits Chalmers analyses the argument and its premises, qualifies each step with 'absent defeaters', and adopts 'within decades' as the conservative timeframe; the record does not show that he predicts a transition of hours to months. He attributes the name 'intelligence explosion' to Good (1965). The paper's discussion of the concept is recorded separately, not as a stance on it.
The evidence 02 primary source Supports the claim
The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis ↗ Journal of Consciousness Studies · 2010
Archived copy, captured 2026-09-17: The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis ↗
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 “One view is that this event will be followed by an explosion to ever-greater levels of intelligence, as each generation of machines creates more intelligent machines in turn.” Location in source PDF p. 1, Introduction, first paragraph
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-31
Source details and check notes Authors David J. Chalmers Version Author-hosted 56-page expression; first-page footnote identifies 2010 journal publication, volume 17, pp. 7–65. Revision date unknown; PDF pagination differs from journal pagination. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-09-20 Language English (en) Archive copy Open archived copy, captured 2026-09-17: The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis ↗ . An archive copy shows only what the archive retrieved on 2026-09-17. It does not prove what the page said earlier, and it can differ from the copy checked on 2026-09-20.Attribution David J. Chalmers, The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis (2010). Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata and brief attributed paraphrases only; no full source, personal contact details or dataset imported. Check notes Candidate pack passage, arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI (research/risk-debate). The quotation (28 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. No human editorial review. primary source Supports the claim
The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis ↗ Journal of Consciousness Studies · 2010
Archived copy, captured 2026-09-17: The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis ↗
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 “I think it would not be unreasonable to suggest “within years” here (and some would suggest “within days” or even sooner for the second step), but as before “within decades” is conservative while still being interesting.” Location in source PDF p. 7, Section 3, timeframe stipulations
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-31
Source details and check notes Authors David J. Chalmers Version Author-hosted 56-page expression; first-page footnote identifies 2010 journal publication, volume 17, pp. 7–65. Revision date unknown; PDF pagination differs from journal pagination. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-09-20 Language English (en) Archive copy Open archived copy, captured 2026-09-17: The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis ↗ . An archive copy shows only what the archive retrieved on 2026-09-17. It does not prove what the page said earlier, and it can differ from the copy checked on 2026-09-20.Attribution David J. Chalmers, The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis (2010). Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata and brief attributed paraphrases only; no full source, personal contact details or dataset imported. 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. 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 bears on the proposition without meeting its criterion; the record names the missing element. It is not an articulation and implies no influence.
Date. Date of publication, as the source gives it.
Record ID rd-a4-chalmers-singularity