A nuclear war into a supervolcano is just really unlikely.
A nuclear war happening at the same time as a supervolcano is very unlikely. However, it could take a hundred thousand years to recover population, so if the frequency of supervolcanic eruptions is roughly every 30,000 years, itās quite likely there would be one before we recover.
Plus if there were 1000 people then there would be so much human canned goods left overājust go to a major city and sit in a supermarket.
The scenario Iām talking about is one where the worsening climate and loss of technology means they would not be enough food, so the stored food would be consumed quickly. Furthermore, edible wild species including fish may be eaten to extinction.
Again, Iām not saying that I think it doesnāt matter, but I think my answers are good reasons why itās less than AI
A nuclear war happening at the same time as a supervolcano is very unlikely. However, it could take a hundred thousand years to recover population, so if the frequency of supervolcanic eruptions is roughly every 30,000 years, itās quite likely there would be one before we recover.
The scenario Iām talking about is one where the worsening climate and loss of technology means they would not be enough food, so the stored food would be consumed quickly. Furthermore, edible wild species including fish may be eaten to extinction.
I agree that more total money should be spent on AGI safety than nuclear issues. However, resilience to sunlight reduction is much more neglected than AGI safety. Thatās why the Monte Carlo analyses found that the cost-effectiveness of resilience to loss of electricity (e.g. high-altitude detonations of nuclear weapons causing electromagnetic pulses) and resilience to nuclear winter are competitive with AGI safety.