Debating the '10% extinction chance' framing: attention now, credibility loss later
paulnovosad · x · 2026-09-11
Itaishér argues that the ">10%" p(doom) framing grabs attention short-term but erodes long-term credibility, and claims with unfounded specificity should be avoided in favor of other ways to communicate risk.
wwwojtekk quips that 10% is a good number—large enough to say "I told you so" after we all die, but below the 20% threshold where people start mocking failed predictions. The exchange captures a real tension in AI safety communication: alarmist precision vs. sober messaging.
Related event: Debate Erupts Over How to Frame AI Extinction Risk Probabilities(2 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Joshua Gans' three lessons: keep discovery joy, stay self-critical with AI writing — joshgans · 2026-09-11
- Economist Joshua Gans reflects on his year-long experiment using AI to accelerate research — joshgans · 2026-09-11
- Joshua Gans: ChatGPT 5.2 Pro wrote a full paper in 19 minutes, but quality ideas still matter — joshgans · 2026-09-11
- Economist's year-long AI paper experiment: rigorous theory, human insight — joshgans · 2026-09-11
- Blogger predicts 2027: every major AI lab will match OpenAI's superintelligence — Dr_Singularity · 2026-09-11
- Four-Color Theorem Gets a Rare New Proof, Revisiting Its Controversial 1970s Computer-Assisted Solution — soumitrashukla9 · 2026-09-11