Claim and evidence Close ×
Davidson and Houlden's paper of August 2025 estimates that a software intelligence explosion would probably (about 60%) compress more than three years of AI progress into less than a year, and is somewhat unlikely (about 20%) to compress more than ten years into less than a year, and calls this an intermediate view. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Stated in source Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source
Date 2025-08-04 · publication Records dated 2025 → Role Context Register (kind of text) Nonfiction Missing element It quantifies a compression of AI progress into under a year but does not state that capability rises to far beyond human level within that period; it places itself between the proposition and its denial. Scope and limits The authors describe their analysis as speculative and as an 'intermediate view' between 'those who are highly sceptical of intelligence explosion dynamics and those who anticipate extremely rapid and sustained capabilities increases'.
The evidence 02 primary source Supports the claim
How quick and big would a software intelligence explosion be? ↗ Forethought (forethought.org) · 2025-08-04
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 “We think that the software intelligence explosion will probably (~60%) compress >3 years of AI progress into <1 year, but is somewhat unlikely (~20%) to compress >10 years into <1 year.” Location in source Summary, second paragraph
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-31
Source details and check notes Authors Tom Davidson; Tom Houlden Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 b228bf2eb38f98ec43f89e64d297039dc73656dabc03cda80ee9c356131ac99f). Current web page dated 4th August 2025, retrieved 2026-10-29. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-29 Language English (en) Attribution Tom Davidson, Tom Houlden, “How quick and big would a software intelligence explosion be?”, 2025-08-04. 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 (31 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
How quick and big would a software intelligence explosion be? ↗ Forethought (forethought.org) · 2025-08-04
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 “Our analysis suggests an intermediate view” Location in source Summary, third paragraph
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-31
Source details and check notes Authors Tom Davidson; Tom Houlden Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 b228bf2eb38f98ec43f89e64d297039dc73656dabc03cda80ee9c356131ac99f). Current web page dated 4th August 2025, retrieved 2026-10-29. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-29 Language English (en) Attribution Tom Davidson, Tom Houlden, “How quick and big would a software intelligence explosion be?”, 2025-08-04. 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 (6 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-davidson-houlden-2025-how-quick-and-big