Claim · 2022-11 · publication · Stated in source · Supported

Thorstad's working paper of November 2022 replies to Chalmers's paper of 2010, which it names and discusses in its Section 4.

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

Against the singularity hypothesis → cites → The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis

Where it appears

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

Claim and evidence

Against the singularity hypothesiscites ↓The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis

Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editorStated in sourceSupported

Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source

Date: 2022-11 · publication Records dated 2022 →

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

The evidence 01

primary sourceSupports the claim

Against the singularity hypothesis

Global Priorities Institute, Working Paper No. 19-2022 (later published in Philosophical Studies) · 2022-11

Cite the original source

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

Source excerpt

“Sections 4-5 consider recent philosophical arguments for the singularity hypothesis by Chalmers (2010) and Bostrom (2014), showing how these arguments fail to support the hypothesis’ growth assumptions.”

Location in source PDF p. 3, Introduction, plan of the paper

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-10-31

Source details and check notes

Authors: David Thorstad
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 305984d0cbe86ec0f82ae081d2cfa41930e3f42f3f4352692637cd07210b1fc4). GPI working paper PDF dated November 2022; the journal version was not compared.
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-10-29
Language: English (en)
Attribution: David Thorstad, “Against the singularity hypothesis”, 2022-11.
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. 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 publication, as the source gives it.

Record ID rd-reply-thorstad-2022-against-singularity-hypothesis-to-chalmers-singularity