This is a linkpost for https://metr.org/blog/2025-03-19-measuring-ai-ability-to-complete-long-tasks/
1.
^
I was going to say something more here about the probability of success within the lifetimes of the person's "intellectual heirs" after they're dead, as a way of meaningfully defining task lengths once they're >> 100 years, but then I realized that this introduces other complications because one human may have multiple "heirs" and that seems unfair to the AI if we're trying to define AGI in terms of single-human performance. This complication exists but it's not the one I'm trying to talk about in my comment...
2.
^
The comparison here is not really fair since Wiles built on a lot of work by earlier mathematicians – yet another conceptual complication of long task lengths that is not the one I'm trying to make a point about here.
METR: Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Tasks
32Daniel Kokotajlo
6Jacob Steinhardt
8Daniel Kokotajlo
3Jacob Steinhardt
12Oliver Habryka
4Ben Pace
7Daniel Kokotajlo
1Jacob Steinhardt
6elifland
5Matt Goldenberg
2Daniel Kokotajlo
4Anthony DiGiovanni
4Daniel Kokotajlo
14nostalgebraist
6Daniel Kokotajlo
11Nikola Jurkovic
6Rafael Harth
New Comment
This is probably the most important single piece of evidence about AGI timelines right now. Well done! I think the trend should be superexponential, e.g. each doubling takes 10% less calendar time on average. Eli Lifland and I did some calculations yesterday suggesting that this would get to AGI in 2028. Will do more serious investigation soon.
Why do I expect the trend to be superexponential? Well, it seems like it sorta has to go superexponential eventually. Imagine: We've got to AIs that can with ~100% reliability do tasks that take professional humans 10 years. But somehow they can't do tasks that take professional humans 160 years? And it's going to take 4 more doublings to get there? And these 4 doublings are going to take 2 more years to occur? No, at some point you "jump all the way" to AGI, i.e. AI systems that can do any length of task as well as professional humans -- 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years, etc.
Also, zooming in mechanistically on what's going on, insofar as an AI system can do tasks below length X but not above length X, it's gotta be for some reason -- some skill that the AI lacks, which isn't important for tasks below length X but which tends to be crucial for tasks above length X. But there are only a finite number of skills that humans have that AIs lack, and if we were to plot them on a horizon-length graph (where the x-axis is log of horizon length, and each skill is plotted on the x-axis where it starts being important, such that it's not important to have for tasks less than that length) the distribution of skills by horizon length would presumably taper off, with tons of skills necessary for pretty short tasks, a decent amount necessary for medium tasks (but not short), and a long thin tail of skills that are necessary for long tasks (but not medium), a tail that eventually goes to 0, probably around a few years on the x-axis. So assuming AIs learn skills at a constant rate, we should see acceleration rather than a constant exponential. There just aren't that many skills you need to operate for 10 days that you don't also need to operate for 1 day, compared to how many skills you need to operate for 1 hour that you don't also need to operate for 6 minutes.
There are two other factors worth mentioning which aren't part of the above: One, the projected slowdown in capability advances that'll come as compute and data scaling falters due to becoming too expensive. And two, pointing in the other direction, the projected speedup in capability advances that'll come as AI systems start substantially accelerating AI R&D.
2Doesn't the trend line already take into account the effect you are positing? ML research engineers already say they get significant and increasing productivity boosts from AI assistants and have been for some time. I think the argument you are making is double-counting this. (Unless you want to argue that the kink with Claude is the start of the super-exponential, which we would presumably get data on pretty soon).
I indeed think that AI assistance has been accelerating AI progress. However, so far the effect has been very small, like single-digit percentage points. So it won't be distinguishable in the data from zero. But in the future if trends continue the effect will be large, possibly enough to more than counteract the effect of scaling slowing down, possibly not, we shall see.
Research engineers I talk to already report >3x speedups from AI assistants. It seems like that has to be enough that it would be showing up in the numbers. My null hypothesis would be that programmer productivity is increasing exponentially and has been for ~2 years, and this is already being taken into account in the curves, and without this effect you would see a slower (though imo not massively slower) exponential.
(This would argue for dropping the pre-2022 models from the graph which I think would give slightly faster doubling times, on the order of 5-6 months if I had to eyeball.).
Research engineers I talk to already report >3x speedups from AI assistants
Huh, I would be extremely surprised by this number. I program most days, in domains where AI assistance is particularly useful (frontend programming with relatively high churn), and I am definitely not anywhere near 3x total speedup. Maybe a 1.5x, maybe a 2x on good weeks, but definitely not a 3x. A >3x in any domain would be surprising, and my guess is generalization for research engineer code (as opposed to churn-heavy frontend development) is less.
2I think my front-end productivity might be up 3x? A shoggoth helped me building a stripe shop and do a ton of UI design that I would’ve been hesitant to take on myself (without hiring someone else to work with), as well as quality increase in speed of churning through front-end designs.
(This is going from “wouldn’t take on the project due to low skill” to “can take it on and deliver it in a reasonable amount of time”, which is different from “takes top programmer and speeds them up 3x”.)
I don't believe it. I don't believe that overall algorithmic progress is 3x faster. Maaaybe coding is 3x faster but that would maybe increase overall algo progress by like 30% idk. But also I don't think coding is really 3x faster on average for the things that matter.
I meant coding in particular, I agree algorithmic progress is not 3x faster. I checked again just now with someone and they did indeed report 3x speedup for writing code, although said that the new bottleneck becomes waiting for experiments to run (note this is not obviously something that can be solved by greater automation, at least up until the point that AI is picking better experiments than humans).
I agree with habryka that the current speedup is probably substantially less than 3x.
However, worth keeping in mind that if it were 3x for engineering the overall AI progress speedup would be substantially lower, due to (a) non-engineering activities having a lower speedup, (b) compute bottlenecks, (c) half of the default pace of progress coming from compute.
My null hypothesis would be that programmer productivity is increasing exponentially and has been for ~2 years, and this is already being taken into account in the curves, and without this effect you would see a slower (though imo not massively slower) exponential
Exponential growth alone doesn't imply a significant effect here, if the current absolute speedup is low.
I'm not at all convinced it has to be something discrete like "skills" or "achieved general intelligence".
There are many continuous factors that I can imagine that help planning long tasks.
I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying. It sounds like you are accusing me of thinking that skills are binary--either you have them or you don't. I agree, in reality many skills are scalar instead of binary; you can have them to greater or lesser degrees. I don't think that changes the analysis much though.
No, at some point you "jump all the way" to AGI
I'm confused as to what the actual argument for this is. It seems like you've just kinda asserted it. (I realize in some contexts all you can do is offer an "incredulous stare," but this doesn't seem like the kind of context where that suffices.)
I'm not sure if the argument is supposed to be the stuff you say in the next paragraph (if so, the "Also" is confusing).
Great question. You are forcing me to actually think through the argument more carefully. Here goes:
Suppose we defined "t-AGI" as "An AI system that can do basically everything that professional humans can do in time t or less, and just as well, while being cheaper." And we said AGI is an AI that can do everything at least as well as professional humans, while being cheaper.
Well, then AGI = t-AGI for t=infinity. Because for anything professional humans can do, no matter how long it takes, AGI can do it at least as well.
Now, METR's definition is different. If I understand correctly, they made a dataset of AI R&D tasks, had humans give a baseline for how long it takes humans to do the tasks, and then had AIs do the tasks and found this nice relationship where AIs tend to be able to do tasks below time t but not above, for t which varies from AI to AI and increases as the AIs get smarter.
...I guess the summary is, if you think about horizon lengths as being relative to humans (i.e. the t-AGI definition above) then by definition you eventually "jump all the way to AGI" when you strictly dominate humans. But if you think of horizon length as being the length of task the AI can do vs. not do (*not* "as well as humans," just "can do at all") then it's logically possible for horizon lengths to just smoothly grow for the next billion years and never reach infinity.
So that's the argument-by-definition. There's also an intuition pump about the skills, which also was a pretty handwavy argument, but is separate.
1ICYMI, the same argument appears in the METR paper itself, in section 8.1 under "AGI will have 'infinite' horizon length."
The argument makes sense to me, but I'm not totally convinced.
In METR's definition, they condition on successful human task completion when computing task durations. This choice makes sense in their setting for reasons they discuss in B.1.1, but things would get weird if you tried to apply it to extremely long/hard tasks.
If a typical time-to-success for a skilled human at some task is ~10 years, then the task is probably so ambitious that success is nowhere near guaranteed at 10 years, or possibly even within that human's lifetime[1]. It would understate the difficulty of the task to say it "takes 10 years for a human to do it": the thing that takes 10 years is an ultimately successful human attempt, but most human attempts would never succeed at all.
As a concrete example, consider "proving Fermat's Last Theorem." If we condition on task success, we have a sample containing just one example, in which a human (Andrew Wiles) did it in about 7 years. But this is not really "a task that a human can do in 7 years," or even "a task that a human mathematician can do in 7 years" – it's a task that took 7 years for Andrew Wiles, the one guy who finally succeeded after many failed attempts by highly skilled humans[2].
If an AI tried to prove or disprove a "comparably hard" conjecture and failed, it would be strange to say that it "couldn't do things that humans can do in 7 years." Humans can't reliably do such things in 7 years; most things that take 7 years (conditional on success) cannot be done reliably by humans at all, for the same reasons that they take so long even in successful attempts. You just have to try and try and try and... maybe you succeed in a year, maybe in 7, maybe in 25, maybe you never do.
So, if you came to me and said "this AI has a METR-style 50% time horizon of 10 years," I would not be so sure that your AI is not an AGI.
In fact, I think this probably would be an AGI. Think about what the description really means: "if you look instances of successful task completion by humans, and filter to the cases that took 10 years for the successful humans to finish, the AI can succeed at 50% of them." Such tasks are so hard that I'm not sure the human success rate is above 50%, even if you let the human spend their whole life on it; for all I know the human success rate might be far lower. So there may not be any well-defined thing left here that humans "can do" but which the AI "cannot do."
On another note, (maybe this is obvious but) if we do think that "AGI will have infinite horizon length" then I think it's potentially misleading to say this means growth will be superexponential. The reason is that there are two things this could mean:
- "Based on my 'gears-level' model of AI development, I have some reason to believe this trend will accelerate beyond exponential in the future, due to some 'low-level' factors I know about independently from this discussion"
- "The exponential trend can never reach AGI, but I personally think we will reach AGI at some point, therefore the trend must speed up"
I originally read it as 1, which would be a reason for shortening timelines: however "fast" things were from this METR trend alone, we have some reason to think they'll get "even faster." However, it seems like the intended reading is 2, and it would not make sense to shorten your timeline based on 2. (If someone thought the exponential growth was "enough for AGI," then the observation in 2 introduces an additional milestone that needs to be crossed on the way to AGI, and their timeline should lengthen to accommodate it; if they didn't think this then 2 is not news to them at all.)
- ^
I was going to say something more here about the probability of success within the lifetimes of the person's "intellectual heirs" after they're dead, as a way of meaningfully defining task lengths once they're >> 100 years, but then I realized that this introduces other complications because one human may have multiple "heirs" and that seems unfair to the AI if we're trying to define AGI in terms of single-human performance. This complication exists but it's not the one I'm trying to talk about in my comment...
- ^
The comparison here is not really fair since Wiles built on a lot of work by earlier mathematicians – yet another conceptual complication of long task lengths that is not the one I'm trying to make a point about here.
I found this comment helpful, thanks!
The bottom line is basically "Either we definite horizon length in such a way that the trend has to be faster than exponential eventually (when we 'jump all the way to AGI') or we define it in such a way that some unknown finite horizon length matches the best humans and thus counts as AGI."
I think this discussion has overall made me less bullish on the conceptual argument and more interested in the intuition pump about the inherent difficulty of going from 1 to 10 hours being higher than the inherent difficulty of going from 1 to 10 years.
1This has been one of the most important results for my personal timelines to date. It was a big part of the reason why I recently updated from ~3 year median to ~4 year median to AI that can automate >95% of remote jobs from 2022, and why my distribution overall has become more narrow (less probability on really long timelines).
I really don't think this is a reasonable measure for ability to do long term tasks, but I don't have the time or energy to fight this battle, so I'll just register my prediction that this paper is not going to age well.
Curated and popular this week
Blogpost; tweet thread.