Hey Vasco. Haven’t seen anything like this. But are talking about a probability estimates across all GCRs at once? My guess would be that the uncertainties would be so large, that it would not really tell you anything.
Thanks, Florian. I was thinking about estimates like the probability of human population in 2050 being 99 % lower than in 2025 conditional on 1 k nuclear detonations in 2026.
In addition, I think it would be good to have estimates of the fraction of the expected damage caused by tails events as a fraction of the damage caused by all events. I got some for conflicts and pandemics.
Ah okay get it. Have you considered asking those on Metaculus? Maybe you could get a rough ballpark there. But I am not aware of anything like this in peer reviewed research.
There aresome similar questions on Metaculus, which I think is good, but I do not trust their forecasts. I believe the ones for extreme events like human extinction are insensitive to small probabilities, and that detailed quantitative modelling would correct for this. I estimated a nearterm annual risk of human extinction from:
Nuclear war of 5.93*10^-12, which is only 1.19*10^-6 (= 5.93*10^-12/(5*10^-6)) of the 5*10^-6 that I understand Toby Ord guessed in The Precipice.
Supervolcanoes of 3.38*10^-14, which is only 6.76*10^-8 (= 3.38*10^-14/(5*10^-7)) of the 5*10^-7 that I understand Toby guessed in The Precipice.
Hey Vasco. Haven’t seen anything like this. But are talking about a probability estimates across all GCRs at once? My guess would be that the uncertainties would be so large, that it would not really tell you anything.
Thanks, Florian. I was thinking about estimates like the probability of human population in 2050 being 99 % lower than in 2025 conditional on 1 k nuclear detonations in 2026.
In addition, I think it would be good to have estimates of the fraction of the expected damage caused by tails events as a fraction of the damage caused by all events. I got some for conflicts and pandemics.
Ah okay get it. Have you considered asking those on Metaculus? Maybe you could get a rough ballpark there. But I am not aware of anything like this in peer reviewed research.
There are some similar questions on Metaculus, which I think is good, but I do not trust their forecasts. I believe the ones for extreme events like human extinction are insensitive to small probabilities, and that detailed quantitative modelling would correct for this. I estimated a nearterm annual risk of human extinction from:
Nuclear war of 5.93*10^-12, which is only 1.19*10^-6 (= 5.93*10^-12/(5*10^-6)) of the 5*10^-6 that I understand Toby Ord guessed in The Precipice.
Supervolcanoes of 3.38*10^-14, which is only 6.76*10^-8 (= 3.38*10^-14/(5*10^-7)) of the 5*10^-7 that I understand Toby guessed in The Precipice.