Yes, natural catastrophes probabilities could be presented as frequentist probabilities, but some estimates are based on logical uncertainty of the claims like “AGI is possible”.
Also, are these probabilities conditioned on “all possible prevention measures are taken”? If yes, they are final probabilities which can’t be made lower.
In the main sheet, the estimates are all unconditional (unless I made mistakes). They’re just people’s estimates of the probabilities that things will actually occur. There’s a separate sheet for conditional estimates.
So presumably people’s estimates of the chances these catastrophes occur would be lower conditional on people put in unexpectedly much effort to solve the problems.
Also, here’s a relevant quote from The Precipice, which helps contextualise Ord’s estimates. He writes that his estimates already:
incorporate the possibility that we get our act together and start taking these risks very seriously. Future risks are often estimated with an assumption of ‘business as usual’: that our levels of concern and resources devoted to addressing the risks stay where they are today. If I had assumed business as usual, my risk estimates would have been substantially higher. But I think they would have been misleading, overstating the chance that we actually suffer an existential catastrophe. So instead, I’ve made allowances for the fact that we will likely respond to the escalating risks, with substantial efforts to reduce them.
The numbers therefore represent my actual best guesses of the chance the threats materialise, taking our responses into account. If we outperform my expectations, we could bring the remaining risk down below these estimates. Perhaps one could say that we were heading towards Russian roulette with two bullets in the gun, but that I think we will remove one of these before it’s time to pull the trigger. And there might just be time to remove the last one too, if we really try.
Yes, natural catastrophes probabilities could be presented as frequentist probabilities, but some estimates are based on logical uncertainty of the claims like “AGI is possible”.
Also, are these probabilities conditioned on “all possible prevention measures are taken”? If yes, they are final probabilities which can’t be made lower.
In the main sheet, the estimates are all unconditional (unless I made mistakes). They’re just people’s estimates of the probabilities that things will actually occur. There’s a separate sheet for conditional estimates.
So presumably people’s estimates of the chances these catastrophes occur would be lower conditional on people put in unexpectedly much effort to solve the problems.
Also, here’s a relevant quote from The Precipice, which helps contextualise Ord’s estimates. He writes that his estimates already: