Claim and evidence Close ×
Grace's post of 2022 argues that identifying a feedback loop of AI improving AI does not show that the loop is fast, and states that she knows of no strong reason to expect very fast growth in AI capabilities at around human-level performance. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Stated in source Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source
Date 2022-08-31 · publication Records dated 2022 → Role Contesting Register (kind of text) Nonfiction Engagement Engages a premise. It disputes the inference from the existence of a feedback loop to a fast one. Scope and limits The post presents itself as arguments run past readers ('not an exhaustive literature review') and notes that strong arguments for fast growth might exist.
The evidence 02 primary source Supports the claim
Counterarguments to the basic AI x-risk case ↗ AI Impacts blog (aiimpacts.org) · 2022-08-31
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 “Identifying a feedback loop empirically does not signify an explosion of whatever you are looking at.” Location in source Section "Speed of intelligence growth is ambiguous", counterargument to the feedback-loop argument
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-31
Source details and check notes Authors Katja Grace Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 c3724cd0728edac7eed98d46da518166db69bc8a18b7dfd81538d0580d6a838a). Current page with the byline "Katja Grace, 31 August 2022", published 2022-10-14 and modified 2023-01-18 according to its metadata; retrieved 2026-10-29. The cross-family check retrieved it again on 2026-10-31; the bytes differ, and the check compared the quoted passages. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-29 Language English (en) Attribution Katja Grace, “Counterarguments to the basic AI x-risk case”, 2022-08-31. 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 (16 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 87) re-read the record’s source and found the quotation and stance supported. No human editorial review. primary source Supports the claim
Counterarguments to the basic AI x-risk case ↗ AI Impacts blog (aiimpacts.org) · 2022-08-31
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 “Overall, I don’t know of strong reason to expect very fast growth in AI capabilities at around human-level AI performance, though I hear such arguments might exist.” Location in source Section "Speed of intelligence growth is ambiguous", closing paragraph
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-31
Source details and check notes Authors Katja Grace Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 c3724cd0728edac7eed98d46da518166db69bc8a18b7dfd81538d0580d6a838a). Current page with the byline "Katja Grace, 31 August 2022", published 2022-10-14 and modified 2023-01-18 according to its metadata; retrieved 2026-10-29. The cross-family check retrieved it again on 2026-10-31; the bytes differ, and the check compared the quoted passages. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-29 Language English (en) Attribution Katja Grace, “Counterarguments to the basic AI x-risk case”, 2022-08-31. 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 (27 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 87) 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 disputes the proposition or a premise it depends on. The record documents the text’s position, not who is right.
Date. Dated by the byline, 31 August 2022. The research pack gave 14 October 2022 as the date of publication; a cross-family check (2026-10-31, item 87) found that the page displays 31 August 2022 and did not establish the later date.
Record ID rd-a4-grace-2022-counterarguments