# AI Predicts AGI: Leveraging AGI Forecasting and Peer Review to Explore LLMs' Complex Reasoning Capabilities

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.09385 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.09385/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 12 of its 17 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 Dec 2024.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-benchmarks-and-evaluation/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 12 of 12)

- [Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.04475/) (2024)
- [ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.07201/) (2023)
- [Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.18796/) (2024)
- [Inadequacies of Large Language Model Benchmarks in the Era of Generative Artificial Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.09880/) (2024)
- [Metacognitive Prompting Improves Understanding in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.05342/) (2023)
- [Time Series Forecasting with LLMs: Understanding and Enhancing Model Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.10835/) (2024)
- [PRE: A Peer Review Based Large Language Model Evaluator](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.15641/) (2024)
- [Beyond Static Datasets: A Deep Interaction Approach to LLM Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.04369/) (2023)
- [AI-Augmented Predictions: LLM Assistants Improve Human Forecasting Accuracy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.07862/) (2024)
- [PiCO: Peer Review in LLMs based on the Consistency Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01830/) (2024)
- [Forecasting AI Progress: Evidence from a Survey of Machine Learning Researchers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.04132/) (2022)
- [Post Turing: Mapping the landscape of LLM Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.02049/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We tasked 16 state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) with estimating the likelihood of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) emerging by 2030. To assess the quality of these forecasts, we implemented an automated peer review process (LLM-PR). The LLMs' estimates varied widely, ranging from 3% (Reka- Core) to 47.6% (GPT-4o), with a median of 12.5%. These estimates closely align with a recent expert survey that projected a 10% likelihood of AGI by 2027, underscoring the relevance of LLMs in forecasting complex, speculative scenarios. The LLM-PR process demonstrated strong reliability, evidenced by a high Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC = 0.79), reflecting notable consistency in scoring across the models. Among the models, Pplx-70b-online emerged as the top performer, while Gemini-1.5-pro-api ranked the lowest. A cross-comparison with external benchmarks, such as LMSYS Chatbot Arena, revealed that LLM rankings remained consistent across different evaluation methods, suggesting that existing benchmarks may not encapsulate some of the skills relevant for AGI prediction. We further explored the use of weighting schemes based on external benchmarks, optimizing the alignment of LLMs' predictions with human expert forecasts. This analysis led to the development of a new, 'AGI benchmark' designed to highlight performance differences in AGI-related tasks. Our findings offer insights into LLMs' capabilities in speculative, interdisciplinary forecasting tasks and emphasize the growing need for innovative evaluation frameworks for assessing AI performance in complex, uncertain real-world scenarios.