Claim · 2024-06-27 · publication · Stated in source · Supported

Narayanan and Kapoor's post of June 2024 addresses Aschenbrenner's essay of 2024, which it names, in its further-reading note.

One recorded claim. The claim panel gives its qualification, the source passages with their place in each source, and how it was checked.

What it connects

AI scaling myths → cites → Situational Awareness: The Decade Ahead

Where it appears

No collection page holds this claim. It is listed with its records in the explorer.

Claim and evidence

AI scaling mythscites ↓Situational Awareness: The Decade Ahead

Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editorStated in sourceSupported

Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source

Date: 2024-06-27 · publication Records dated 2024 →

Scope and limitsA reply is not agreement; the record says only that the text answers the other.

The evidence 02

primary sourceSupports the claim

AI scaling myths

AI Snake Oil (the authors' Substack, now at normaltech.ai) · 2024-06-27

Cite the original source

Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.

Source excerpt

“A recent essay by Leopold Aschenbrenner made waves due to its claim that “AGI by 2027 is strikingly plausible”. We haven’t tried to give a point-by-point rebuttal here”

Location in source Section "Further reading"

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-10-31

Source details and check notes

Authors: Arvind Narayanan; Sayash Kapoor
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 14de787679324dbfbfdaaf1093d0c62ecba3e07a55732cdfa9ab74cc467f913d). Current Substack page (requested at aisnakeoil.com, served at normaltech.ai), dated 2024-06-27 in its metadata; retrieved 2026-10-29.
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-10-29
Language: English (en)
Attribution: Arvind Narayanan, Sayash Kapoor, “AI scaling myths”, 2024-06-27.
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 (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 sourceSupports the claim

AI scaling myths

AI Snake Oil (the authors' Substack, now at normaltech.ai) · 2024-06-27

Cite the original source

Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.

Source excerpt

“His arguments for his timeline are entertaining and thought provoking, but fundamentally an exercise in trendline extrapolation.”

Location in source Section "Further reading"

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-10-31

Source details and check notes

Authors: Arvind Narayanan; Sayash Kapoor
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 14de787679324dbfbfdaaf1093d0c62ecba3e07a55732cdfa9ab74cc467f913d). Current Substack page (requested at aisnakeoil.com, served at normaltech.ai), dated 2024-06-27 in its metadata; retrieved 2026-10-29.
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-10-29
Language: English (en)
Attribution: Arvind Narayanan, Sayash Kapoor, “AI scaling myths”, 2024-06-27.
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. 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. An explicit reference to a work. Citation alone is neither agreement nor causal influence.

Date. Date of posting.

Record ID rd-reply-narayanan-kapoor-2024-ai-scaling-myths-to-aschenbrenner-2024-situational-awareness