The P(Doom) Paradox: Probability Estimates Themselves Change Society's Response
codytfenwick · x · 2026-09-25
A discussion about the limitations of "P(Doom)" as a construct. @binarybits argues that P(Doom) is not an independent, objective number: it depends on society's reaction function — P(Doom | status quo AI policy) is likely much higher than P(Doom | governments take decisive action), and the probability of decisive action at any moment depends partly on people's stated P(Doom).
codytfenwick generalizes: this afflicts nearly any probabilistic assessment — the assessment itself can affect the outcome. Nate Silver's election forecasts, for example, might motivate or demotivate voters enough to actually change the result; climate forecasts face the same issue. Still, he argues this complication doesn't undermine the utility of probabilistic thinking.
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