there are more than two
different Sam
Karma: 3
It’s close to that—as risks go up and down, what adjacent possible new innovations could make those risks go down (or up!) further? What do you see in your updates that could move solutions between “possible” and “done”? Are there any public assessments of what can be better in the world?
e.g. your Asteroid estimate is 0.02%/decade, but NASA DART shows when one shows up we can redirect if we’ve paid enough attention to see the asteroid coming in enough time (it’s a bit more complicated than that, but not much). Humanity has gone from Asteroids being an inevitable (~100%) extinction event over a long enough time horizon to being largely “solved” in scientific terms (ie 0% if we systematically look and have a spare DART mission in a cupboard somewhere, which has an engineering cost of $x). Does anyone look at that transition for more risks?
Volcanoes or aliens aren’t in that category, but AMR etc appears on some of risk lists (not in your scope). Is there another risk that was catastrophic last decade which can become mitigated next decade?
So, in your team’s case, does anyone take your forecasts/updates and put them next to tech/innovation/change assessments and gone “someone couldn’t have done a DART mission five years ago, but now this thing is possible...”
Once the Bacon Bill is cooked, there may be an interesting piece for an unusual coalition to write on applying the proposed standards for pig lives for how AI safety may play out for humans—no minimum standards, commercial incentives, etc.