Part 3/15:
Independent scrutiny and peer feedback reveal significant flaws:
Questionable Expertise and Credibility: The authors include forecasters with limited technical backgrounds and a former OpenAI developer—neither of whom have demonstrated broad expertise in cybersecurity, infrastructure, or systems engineering. Their backgrounds more closely align with AI development than with comprehensive systemic analysis.
Fictional and Non-Research-Based Methodology: The paper's scenarios are essentially works of fiction, built on backward reasoning from preconceived notions about AI's dangers and acceleration. It lacks rigorous research, fails to account for complex real-world choke points, frictions, and diminishing returns found in true systemic change.