Claim and evidence Close ×
Yudkowsky's reply of December 2017 to Chollet's essay argues that Chollet's arguments do not establish that recursive intelligence expansion progresses at a roughly linear pace, and that even Hanson would reject the idea that progress within all systems is confined to such a pace. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Stated in source Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source
Date 2017-12-06 · publication Records dated 2017 → Role Contesting Register (kind of text) Nonfiction Engagement Engages a premise. It disputes the premise, quoted from Chollet, that recursive intelligence expansion is confined to a roughly linear pace. Scope and limits The reply addresses the validity of Chollet's arguments and states that it does not try to make the whole case for an intelligence explosion; Chollet's essay, which the reply quotes, was read by the cross-family check in archive captures and is recorded without a stance.
The evidence 02 primary source Supports the claim
A reply to Francois Chollet on intelligence explosion ↗ Machine Intelligence Research Institute blog · 2017-12-06
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 “If this were to be true, I don’t think it would be established by the arguments given.” Location in source Closing section, after the quotation on "a roughly linear pace"
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-31
Source details and check notes Authors Eliezer Yudkowsky Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 3f284720c9373c722e8d7df5ccf28cacac802dc6681800e038196c2dc40de45c). Current MIRI blog page, dated December 6, 2017, 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 Eliezer Yudkowsky, “A reply to Francois Chollet on intelligence explosion”, 2017-12-06. 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 (17 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 103) re-read the record’s source and found the quotation and stance supported. No human editorial review. primary source Supports the claim
A reply to Francois Chollet on intelligence explosion ↗ Machine Intelligence Research Institute blog · 2017-12-06
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 expect that even Robin Hanson, who was broadly opposing my side of this debate, would have a coughing fit over the idea that progress within all systems is confined to a roughly linear pace.” Location in source Same section
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-31
Source details and check notes Authors Eliezer Yudkowsky Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 3f284720c9373c722e8d7df5ccf28cacac802dc6681800e038196c2dc40de45c). Current MIRI blog page, dated December 6, 2017, 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 Eliezer Yudkowsky, “A reply to Francois Chollet on intelligence explosion”, 2017-12-06. 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 (35 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 103) 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. Date of posting.
Record ID rd-r16-yudkowsky-2017-reply-to-chollet