Scott Alexander lays out his p(doom) math: 25% baseline, halved under a really good Plan C+
slatestarcodex · x · 2026-11-02
Scott Alexander (slatestarcodex) explains his risk estimate in a dispute with @ohabryka: his unconditional p(doom) is 25%, and under a "really good Plan C+" scenario it would be a bit less than half of that. He pushes back on critics' inconsistency: you can't play the horrified deontologist about friends taking AI risk in the same thread where you advocate threatening rival superpowers with unilateral nuclear first strikes. He argues that position would require p(doom|good Plan C+) well above 50%, which he rejects. He stresses he isn't trying to police the Overton Window or guilt anyone.
More from AGI Musings
- 'LLMs are just next-token predictors' is wrong technically but nails the AI slop experience — EigenGender · 2026-11-02
- VraserX mocks AI doomers who trust only their own conferences with superintelligence — VraserX · 2026-11-02
- AI data centers destroy 250,000 trees, undercutting 'paperless' eco promises — im_mansigupta · 2026-11-02
- Resurrecting the dead with AI creates a maintenance burden for the living — ArtificialOther · 2026-11-02
- Dev mocks 'human-in-the-loop' AI startups: unlimited funding but no path to beat autonomous agents — panickssery · 2026-11-02
- "100x more creators are coming": AI will supercharge the attention zero-sum game — signulll · 2026-11-02