2026-08-30 23:55 UTC
Ported over from previous thread
Recently made the discovery of a website called AI 2027 tracker which grades the predictions of AI 2027 independent of the authors.
The way they grade these predictions is odd, 80% accuracy is for some reason “confirmed accurate” and “partially accurate” which is bizarre.
The website also shows a consistent degradation of accuracy over time which is funny
EDIT:ok so they do have a grading criteria, 100% is “highly accurate/confirmed accurate” and 80% is supposed to be “largely accurate”. For some reason they don’t include this on the timeline grading? it’s either confirmed or partially accurate, so it’s still weird
Replies (2)
-
@Soyweiser@awful.systems 2026-08-31 11:21
If it is created by Rationalists part of the oddness could be explained (apart from them just being Rationalists), that they want to be superpredictors, their magic math skills and prediction experience give them better prediction powers. Which will also lead to them subconsciously grading things better than they are because they are invested in it.
-
@lurker@awful.systems 2026-09-02 04:34
There is a second AI 2027 tracker website this one’s pretty different from the other one because: -It only tracks 53 predictions compared to the other’s 202 -There’s no ‘this didn’t happen’ option