Why are superforecasters more optimistic than experts on the AI apocalypse?
A study comparing the views of domain experts and superforecasters on existential risks such as nuclear war and artificial intelligence (AI).
A study compared the views of domain experts and superforecasters on existential risks such as nuclear war and artificial intelligence (AI). The study found that domain experts tended to be more pessimistic than superforecasters about the likelihood of catastrophes and extinctions. According to the Economist:
The median superforecaster reckoned there was a 2.1% chance of an AI-caused catastrophe, and a 0.38% chance of an AI-caused extinction, by the end of the century. AI experts, by contrast, assigned the two events a 12% and 3% chance, respectively.
Superforecasters recognized the potential of AI as a force multiplier for other risks but were more uncertain about its specific risks. The study also highlighted differences in how the two groups perceived societal responses to AI and the limits of human intelligence in dealing with risks.
Read more in the Economist.
About author
DW Team
The GIP Digital Watch Observatory team, consisting of over 30 digital policy experts from around the world, excels in the fields of research and analysis on digital policy issues. The team is backed by the creative prowess of Creative Lab Diplo and the technical expertise of the Diplo tech team.