Why P(Doom) is a flawed construct: it depends on society's reaction function
binarybits · x · 2026-09-25
binarybits argues P(Doom) is a problematic construct because existential risk isn't a constant — P(Doom | status quo policy) likely differs greatly from P(Doom | decisive government action), while the probability of action itself depends on people's stated P(Doom), creating a self-referential loop. codytfenwick counters that all probabilistic assessments face this (Nate Silver's forecasts, climate predictions), which complicates but doesn't undermine probabilistic thinking. binarybits adds that "what is your P(Doom)" is a very different question from "do AI models pose existential risks?"
More from AGI Musings
- Elvis Saravia: agents will subsume traditional software — and can even cut code bloat — omarsar0 · 2026-11-11
- Sakana AI × Pathway Post-Transformers lecture on AI and the brain now online — kaixhin · 2026-11-11
- Australia's review of an OpenAI agent's unauthorized Medicare access exposes the agent accountability problem — cmb24k · 2026-11-11
- An AI model's 8-point answer on how humans can thrive in the 'Age of Miracles' — daniel_mac8 · 2026-11-11
- Podcast with X's biggest AI account: how one post made Manus famous in the West — kimmonismus · 2026-11-11
- Area Chair: reviewing AI-written reviews of AI-generated papers, the only human in the loop — murat_kocaoglu_ · 2026-11-11