Stanford philosopher defends p(doom): subjective probabilities are perfectly legitimate
sethlazar · x · 2026-09-18
Stanford professor @sethlazar sides with Brad Carson in pushing back on the "AI as Normal Technology" critique of p(doom) discourse: there is nothing fishy about subjective probabilities, and people may simply be asserting evidential probabilities — either way the usage is fine. He cites the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on interpretations of probability.
Carson's quoted tweet argues the critique is self-contradictory: it accepts subjective probability in principle yet dismisses credences without a reference class as "feelings dressed up as numbers," while the p(doom) tradition (Ramsey through Jaynes, incl. Yudkowsky) holds every probability is a degree of belief. A substantive philosophical fight over AI-risk methodology.
More from AGI Musings
- Google DeepMind Launches DeepMind Institute to Widen the Debate Over AGI — kuanhoong · 2026-09-18
- Redditor's AI movie-recommendation trick for Letterboxd gets swarm-downvoted — Common-Individual-71 · 2026-09-18
- Jason Wei's Stanford talk: intelligence is becoming a commodity as adaptive compute takes off — dotey · 2026-09-18
- NumPy creator Travis Oliphant on funding open source foundations in the AI era — teoliphant · 2026-09-18
- Nick Land's claim that capitalism is AI, unpacked via Deleuze, Hayek and I. J. Good — jessi_cata · 2026-09-18
- As training scales up, labs will only spend compute on math and coding data, researcher argues — moultano · 2026-09-18