The following podcast contains advertising.

To access an ad-free version of the LawFair podcast,

become a material supporter of LawFair at patreon.com slash law fair.

That's patreon.com slash law fair.

Also, check out LawFair's other podcast offerings,

rational security, chatter, law fair no bull, and the aftermath.

The inevitability thesis of AI is something like,

if we just keep making progress on simpler problems,

then we will eventually arrive at a kind of general intelligence

that undergirds human thinking.

So we have the curious ability to make sense of things in context,

and navigate dynamic environments.

There are things that we do quite naturally with our human brains,

our minds, that really flamics computational systems.

But the thesis is that we're making steady progress,

so all you have to do is extrapolate forward at time,

and you can see that we'll eventually match these capabilities

in a human mind and then surpass them.

So my argument is that's actually unscientific,

because what we're supposed to be doing is evaluating

the evidence that we have on hand for the inevitability thesis

in the first place.

...