Results from the Existential Risk Persuasion Tournament

In 2022, the Forecasting Research Institute (FRI) ran the Existential Risk Persuasion Tournament (XPT). Over the course of four months, 169 forecasters, including 80 superforecasters and 89 experts, forecasted on various questions related to existential and catastrophic risk. Forecasters moved through a four-stage deliberative process that was designed to incentivize them not only to make accurate predictions but also to provide persuasive rationales that boosted the predictive accuracy of others’ forecasts.

Forecasters stopped updating their forecasts on 31st October 2022, and are not currently updating on an ongoing basis. FRI plans to run future iterations of the tournament, and open up the questions more broadly for other forecasters.

This series presents posts discussing the tournament and its results. These posts expand on the results presented in the XPT report.

An­nounc­ing “Fore­cast­ing Ex­is­ten­tial Risks: Ev­i­dence from a Long-Run Fore­cast­ing Tour­na­ment”

What do XPT fore­casts tell us about AI risk?

What do XPT fore­casts tell us about AI timelines?

XPT fore­casts on (some) biolog­i­cal an­chors inputs

XPT fore­casts on (some) Direct Ap­proach model inputs

Sum­mary of posts on XPT fore­casts on AI risk and timelines

What do XPT fore­casts tell us about nu­clear risk?

What do XPT re­sults tell us about biorisk?

A se­lec­tion of cross-cut­ting re­sults from the XPT

In­put sought on next steps for the XPT (also, we’re hiring!)