shaldengeki

Here is the primary author of the timelines forecast:

> In our website frontpage, I think we were pretty careful not to overclaim. We say that the forecast is our "best guess", "informed by trend extrapolations, wargames, ..." Then in the "How did we write it?" box we basically just say it was written iteratively and informed by wargames and feedback. [...] I don't think we said anywhere that it was backed up by straightforward, strongly empirically validated extrapolations.

> In our initial tweet, Daniel said it was a "deeply researched" scenario forecast. This still seems accurate to me, we spent quite a lot of time on it (both the scenario and supplements) and I still think our supplementary research is mostly state of the art, though I can see how people could take it too strongly.

This is really, really great. I hope it gets as many eyeballs on it as AI 2027 did.

> I like when my software gets used by a lot of people and people send me nice emails. In this case, people weren't sending me the nicest emails, unfortunately. But they also didn't really know what I was doing. They saw DOGE, weren't a fan of certain things that they were associated with. But I think at the end of the day, like, the role of the U.S. Digital Service is to improve the UX (user experience) of being an American, which is pretty exciting. And anyone who lets me do that, I will try to work for, even if my friends and family aren't huge fans.

People weren't mad at him because he was trying to improve UX. They were mad at him because DOGE was doing a bunch of other stuff like "harassing government employees who talked about climate resilience", which he actively contributed to but conveniently omits from the interviews he's been giving recently: