How quick and big would a software intelligence explosion be?
A research paper by Tom Davidson and Tom Houlden, Forethought, dated 4 August 2025. Date printed on the Forethought page.
- Issued by
- No issuing record yet. A missing record is a gap in coverage.
- Authors credited
- No authorship claim recorded yet. The source record lists Tom Davidson and Tom Houlden.
- Dates
- No date claim recorded yet. The source record gives the publication date as 2025-08-04.
- Exact source
- How quick and big would a software intelligence explosion be? Forethought (forethought.org) · published 2025-08-04 · Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 b228bf2eb38f98ec43f89e64d297039dc73656dabc03cda80ee9c356131ac99f). Current web page dated 4th August 2025, retrieved 2026-10-29.
Appears in
- Propositions about superintelligence, 1863–2022 →1 record on this document
- Arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI →1 record on this document
Versions
No other versions of this document are recorded. The evidence applies to the source version listed above. Other versions, such as a preprint, working paper or journal publication, are not identified or substituted.
Documentary relations
Each relation is listed separately. Citing, crediting and reporting the use of a method are different acts, and none of them shows agreement or influence by itself.
Bears on · 1
Propositions a passage comes close to without meeting the criterion; each record names what is missing.
- Fast or hard takeoffDavidson 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.2025-08-04 · publication · Stated in source · Supported Inspect claim & evidence ↗Fast or hard takeoff: propositions page →
Not recorded for this document: cites · cited by · explicitly credits · reports using a method from · method reported as used by · applies parts of · parts applied by · discusses · reports evaluation of. A missing record does not show that the relation does not exist.