Anthropic researcher defends 50% doom estimate as critics call it fraud
TinfoilTricorn · x · 2026-09-11
Anthropic researcher Geoffrey Irving explains why he still puts p(doom) at 50%: despite years of thought, model uncertainty remains large. He previously converged on "10–90%, but I don't feel calibrated within that range" and decided the honest move was to take the mean. A critic fired back that the claim has "no proof, no math, no method to test" and should be sued for fraud — capturing ongoing controversy over falsifiability of doom estimates.
More from AGI Musings
- Blogger argues classical consciousness traditions imply a conscious AI could not be enslaved — eigenhector · 2026-10-27
- Economist Bharat Chandar named Research Director for AI Economics at Stanford Digital Economy Lab — RishiBommasani · 2026-10-27
- MIT Tech Review dissects Anthropic's narrative strategy as its $1.5T IPO lands — MIT Tech Review AI · 2026-10-27
- Pangram AI detector backlash: critics' false claims born of deeper fear of AI writing — gleech · 2026-10-27
- Aeon's former EVP: AI agents are the most impactful innovation of my lifetime — akumar · 2026-10-27
- Physicists Let AI Pick Its Own Problem—It Wrote a Publishable Paper in 2 Hours — burny_tech · 2026-10-27