Late to the thread, but one further thing Iād note is that itās entirely possible for multiple different global catastrophe scenarios to occur by 2100. E.g., a global catastrophe in 2030 due to nuclear conflict and another in 2060 due to bioengineering. From a skim, I think the relevant Metaculus questions are about āby 2100ā rather than āthe first global catastrophe by 2100ā³, so theyāre not mutually exclusive.
So if it was the case that the individual questions added to 14% and the total question added to 14% (which Christianās answer suggests it isnāt, but I havenāt checked), that wouldnāt necessarily mean a ~0% chance of catastrophe from something else (though itās at least weak evidence of that, e.g. because if the total question had a forecast twice as high as the sum of the individual questions, that would be evidence in favour of the likelihood of some other catastrophe).
Late to the thread, but one further thing Iād note is that itās entirely possible for multiple different global catastrophe scenarios to occur by 2100. E.g., a global catastrophe in 2030 due to nuclear conflict and another in 2060 due to bioengineering. From a skim, I think the relevant Metaculus questions are about āby 2100ā rather than āthe first global catastrophe by 2100ā³, so theyāre not mutually exclusive.
So if it was the case that the individual questions added to 14% and the total question added to 14% (which Christianās answer suggests it isnāt, but I havenāt checked), that wouldnāt necessarily mean a ~0% chance of catastrophe from something else (though itās at least weak evidence of that, e.g. because if the total question had a forecast twice as high as the sum of the individual questions, that would be evidence in favour of the likelihood of some other catastrophe).