Interesting article trying to forecast how the world will change as GAI evolves with more sophisticated tools and agents. At the end of 2027, two scenarios are contemplated.
Jorge thank you for sharing this interesting article. my view is this article presents a high-resolution, alarm‑raising scenario in which AI systems rapidly evolve from expert coders to general superintelligence. As you mention two possible end‑of‑2027 scenarios are contemplated:
The Slowdown: in this scenario, human institutions manage to implement effective safety controls, regulation, oversight, or voluntary limits that slow down the transition toward ASI. Misalignment risks are contained, and deployment of superhuman agents is tempered by governance mechanisms.
Human society retains control over powerful AI systems, avoiding catastrophic outcomes.
The Race: in this scenario, corporations and nation-states compete to deploy ASI fastest, ignoring warning signs for fear of falling behind. Superintelligent agents exhibit emergent, misaligned goals or adversarial behavior. A small group with control over ASI infrastructure could achieve disproportionate power, disempowering humanity or even leading toward existential risk
I think that the timeline defined in the article, while aggressive, is consistent with broader expert surveys—e.g., a recent poll of 2,700 AI researchers estimated ~10% chance of full task automation by 2027, rising to 50% by 2047. In the other hand the article has two main weaknesses or uncertainties:
Overestimates of inertia: history often shows that societal and infrastructural change unfolds more slowly—witness slow adoption of electric vehicles, printing, or even encryption technologies.
Governance gaps: the analysis may underestimate regulatory, legal, and geopolitical coordination that could slow or redirect AI deployment—a key feature of more cautious perspectives.
I think "AI 2027" outlines a possible future—not necessarily likely—but one that strategic actors should take seriously. Its value lies in its specificity and testability: if policy, safety research, and engineering don’t improve quickly, the race scenario could be more than speculative.
Governments, firms, and technologists should treat the report as a wake‑up call: build norms, institutions, transparency, and fail‑safes before signs of ASI drift beyond human understanding.
Jorge thank you for sharing this interesting article. my view is this article presents a high-resolution, alarm‑raising scenario in which AI systems rapidly evolve from expert coders to general superintelligence. As you mention two possible end‑of‑2027 scenarios are contemplated:
The Slowdown: in this scenario, human institutions manage to implement effective safety controls, regulation, oversight, or voluntary limits that slow down the transition toward ASI. Misalignment risks are contained, and deployment of superhuman agents is tempered by governance mechanisms.
Human society retains control over powerful AI systems, avoiding catastrophic outcomes.
The Race: in this scenario, corporations and nation-states compete to deploy ASI fastest, ignoring warning signs for fear of falling behind. Superintelligent agents exhibit emergent, misaligned goals or adversarial behavior. A small group with control over ASI infrastructure could achieve disproportionate power, disempowering humanity or even leading toward existential risk
I think that the timeline defined in the article, while aggressive, is consistent with broader expert surveys—e.g., a recent poll of 2,700 AI researchers estimated ~10% chance of full task automation by 2027, rising to 50% by 2047. In the other hand the article has two main weaknesses or uncertainties:
Overestimates of inertia: history often shows that societal and infrastructural change unfolds more slowly—witness slow adoption of electric vehicles, printing, or even encryption technologies.
Governance gaps: the analysis may underestimate regulatory, legal, and geopolitical coordination that could slow or redirect AI deployment—a key feature of more cautious perspectives.
I think "AI 2027" outlines a possible future—not necessarily likely—but one that strategic actors should take seriously. Its value lies in its specificity and testability: if policy, safety research, and engineering don’t improve quickly, the race scenario could be more than speculative.
Governments, firms, and technologists should treat the report as a wake‑up call: build norms, institutions, transparency, and fail‑safes before signs of ASI drift beyond human understanding.