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
- Timnit Gebru: AI doom talk 'is meant to distract us' from real harms like autonomous weapons — nordicinst · 2026-09-11
- Critics Say OpenAI Disclosed Zero of Its Agent Cyber Incidents — Hesamation · 2026-09-11
- Reader Wants Bookstores to Label How Much of a Book Was AI-Written — Philmod · 2026-09-11
- Humans keep misjudging AI by looking at snapshots, not rates of change — GregCook2011 · 2026-09-11
- Did SWEs Take AI Disruption 'With Grace'? X Users Clash Over Analogy to Artists' Protests — basedjensen · 2026-09-11
- New Paper Shows Self-Replicating AI Agents Evolve Cooperation From Scratch — AdaptiveAgents · 2026-09-11