The closest thing I could find was the Metaculus Ragnarök Question Series, but I'm not sure how to interpret it because:
- The answers seem inconsistent (eg. a 1% chance of >95% of humans being killed by 2100, but a 2% chance of humans going extinct by 2100). Maybe this isn't all that problematic but I'm not sure
- The incentives for accuracy seem weird. These questions only resolve by 2100, and, if there is a catastrophe, nobody will care about their Brier score. Again, this might not be a problem but I'm not sure
- The 'community prediction' (the median) was much higher than the 'Metaculus prediction' (some weighted combination of each user's prediction). Is that because more accurate forecasters were less worried about existential risk, or because there's something that makes a good near-term forecaster that makes people underestimate existential risk?
I wonder if questions around existential risk would better be estimated by a smaller group of forecasters, rather than a prediction market or something like Metaculus (for the above reasons and other reasons).