Why a probabilistic p(doom)=10% is meaningful even without shared definitions
anpaure · x · 2026-09-10
The author argues that a probabilistic statement like p(doom)=10% is meaningful on its own: it aggregates all feasible scenarios weighted by likelihood, and even when people disagree on what causes doom or how to define it, the collective estimate carries signal.
Related event: Debate flares over the value of p(doom) estimates(2 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- X debate: US elite discourse has obsessed over AGI for three years — jd_pressman · 2026-09-10
- An AI model is only as good as its harness — 0xsachi · 2026-09-10
- X thread argues 'sentience' isn't a natural category for advanced AI agents, citing 'If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies' — jessi_cata · 2026-09-10
- "I wanted a bicycle for the mind, we got DoorDash for Thinking" — round · 2026-09-10
- Daniel Susskind's new book on thriving in the AI age is out today in the UK — jessi_cata · 2026-09-10
- Debate: is Yudkowsky's alignment premise just nihilism in disguise? — irrepldjw · 2026-09-10