Thanks for the comment, Ryan. I agree that report by Joseph Carlsmith is quite detailed. However, I do not think it is sufficiently quantitative. In particular, the probabilities which are multiplied to obtain the chance of an existential catastrophe are directly guessed, as opposed to resulting from detailed modelling (in contrast to the AI takeoff speeds calculated in Tom's report). Joseph was mostly aiming to qualitatively describe the arguments, as opposed to quantifying the risk:

My main hope, though, is not to push for a specific number, but rather to lay out the arguments in a way that can facilitate productive debate.

Hi Saul,

I assume Open Philanthropy (OP) has built quantitative models which estimate GCR, but probably just simple ones, as I would expect a model like Tom's to be published. There may be concerns about information hazards in the context of bio risk, but OP had an approach to quantify it while mitigate them:

A second, less risky approach is to abstract away most biological details and instead consider general ‘base rates’. The aim is to estimate the likelihood of a biological attack or accident using historical data and base rates of analogous scenarios, and of risk factors such as warfare or terrorism.