(Edited 10/14/2022 to include Lifland review. Edited 7/10/23 to include Levinstein review. Edited 10/18/2023 to include superforecaster reviews.)

Open Philanthropy solicited reviews of my draft report “Is power-seeking AI an existential risk?” (Edit: arXiv version here) from various sources. Where the reviewers allowed us to make their comments public in this format, links to these comments are below, along with some responses from me in blue. 

  1. Leopold Aschenbrenner
  2. Ben Garfinkel
  3. Daniel Kokotajlo
  4. Ben Levinstein
  5. Eli Lifland
  6. Neel Nanda
  7. Nate Soares
  8. Christian Tarsney
  9. David Thorstad
  10. David Wallace
  11. Anonymous 1 (software engineer at AI research team)
  12. Anonymous 2 (academic computer scientist)

The table below (spreadsheet link here) summarizes each reviewer’s probabilities and key objections.

Screenshot summary of linked spreadsheet

An academic economist focused on AI also provided a review, but they declined to make it public in this format.

Added 10/18/23: With funding from Open Philanthropy, Good Judgment also solicited reviews and forecasts from 21 superforecasters regarding the report -- see here for a summary of the results. These superforecasters completed a survey very similar to the one completed by the other reviewers, except with an additional question (see footnote) about the "multiple stage fallacy."[1] Their aggregated medians were: 

Good Judgment has also prepared more detailed summaries of superforecaster comments and forecasts here (re: my report) and here (re: the other timelines and X-risk questions). See here for some brief reflections on these results, and here for a public spreadsheet with the individual superforecasters numbers and reviews (also screenshot-ed below). 

Comments4
Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 3:59 PM

This is really cool. The format makes it easy to see different conclusions and the cruxes people are relying on to reach those different conclusions. Thanks to you and the reviewers for doing this work, and spending the time to present it in such an easily understandable way!

Very cool!

It would be convenient to have the specific questions that people give probabilities for (e.g. I think "timelines" refers to the year 2070?)

Seconding this

FYI: Cell A7 in the spreadsheet says "Tarnsey" instead of "Tarsney"

Curated and popular this week
Relevant opportunities