Conflict of interest statement: I am the aforementioned human.
This might not quite âbelongâ in this list. But one could classify risks by which of the different âpathsâ they might follow (e.g., those that would vs wouldnât âpass throughâ a distinct collapse stage).
Personally, I think the model/âclassification scheme in Defence in Depth is probably the most useful. But I think at least a quick skim of the above sources is useful; I think they each provide an additional useful angle or tool for thought.
I intend to add to this list over time. If you know of other relevant work, please mention it in a comment.
Wait, exactly what are you actually collecting here?
The scope of this collection is probably best revealed by checking out the above sources.
But to further clarify, here are two things I donât mean, which arenât included in the scope:
Classifications into things like âAI risk vs bioriskâ, or ânatural vs anthropogenicâ
Such categorisation schemes are clearly very important, but theyâre also well-established and you probably donât need a list of sources that show them.
Classifications into different âtypes of catastropheâ, such as Ordâs distinction between extinction, unrecoverable collapse, and unrecoverable dystopia
This is also very important, and maybe I should make such a collection at some point, but itâs a separate matter to this.
Collection of ways of classifying existential risk pathways/âmechanisms
Each of the following works show or can be read as showing a different model/âclassification scheme/âtaxonomy:
Defence in Depth Against Human Extinction:Prevention, Response, Resilience, and Why They All MatterâCotton-Barratt, Daniel, and Sandberg, 2020
The same model is also discussed in Toby Ordâs The Precipice.
Cotton-Barratt also discusses this model, and rationales for building such models, on the 80,000 Hours podcast.
Classifying global catastrophic risksâAvin et al., 2018
Causal diagrams of the paths to existential catastropheâMichael Aird, 2020
Conflict of interest statement: I am the aforementioned human.
This might not quite âbelongâ in this list. But one could classify risks by which of the different âpathsâ they might follow (e.g., those that would vs wouldnât âpass throughâ a distinct collapse stage).
Typology of human extinction risksâAlexey Turchin, ~2015
Related LessWrong post
Personally, I think the model/âclassification scheme in Defence in Depth is probably the most useful. But I think at least a quick skim of the above sources is useful; I think they each provide an additional useful angle or tool for thought.
I intend to add to this list over time. If you know of other relevant work, please mention it in a comment.
Wait, exactly what are you actually collecting here?
The scope of this collection is probably best revealed by checking out the above sources.
But to further clarify, here are two things I donât mean, which arenât included in the scope:
Classifications into things like âAI risk vs bioriskâ, or ânatural vs anthropogenicâ
Such categorisation schemes are clearly very important, but theyâre also well-established and you probably donât need a list of sources that show them.
Classifications into different âtypes of catastropheâ, such as Ordâs distinction between extinction, unrecoverable collapse, and unrecoverable dystopia
This is also very important, and maybe I should make such a collection at some point, but itâs a separate matter to this.