On p(doom): why RSI isn't required and quantitative evidence isn't the point
anpaure · x · 2026-09-10
Continuing the p(doom) debate, the author argues doom doesn't require recursive self-improvement and that demanding quantitative evidence is misplaced — claims like 'our AI is 20% more evil' don't parse, and qualitative readings of METR/Epoch-style graphs are more informative and compelling.
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