A field guide to AI positions

Probability of doom

Informal probability shorthand.

Explanation reviewed:

Sources are over 18 months old.

Publication dates and source age

Sources counted: 2

Newest dated source: 2024-01-05

Assessed at this edition's evidence cutoff: 2026-09-16. 18-month boundary: 2025-03-16.

Publication age does not tell us whether a claim is still valid. Reading an old source again does not make its publication date newer. An update date does not establish that the passage we used was updated.

Open in the glossary Reading notes · Structured record

Prepared with AI assistance. Not independently fact-checked. Original sources and qualifications are below.

In plain language

Someone's estimated chance of an AI disaster. Check what outcome, time period and assumptions the number refers to. [1] [2]

Reference this explanation or suggest a correction

Explanation based on the linked sources. Claim ID: claim-term-pdoom-1a5192ba3d7825ca26b24a72. Edition 0.22.0.

Link to this explanation · Suggest a correction · How corrections work

Keep in mind

These are judgments, not measured disaster rates. Grace and colleagues asked about different outcomes, loss of control and time limits. They warn that AI expertise does not guarantee forecasting skill and who responds can affect results. They still consider researchers' estimates useful. [2]

Reference this explanation or suggest a correction

Explanation based on the linked sources. Claim ID: claim-term-pdoom-09422ce4d5c74cb753a9bb98. Edition 0.22.0.

Link to this explanation · Suggest a correction · How corrections work

A fuller explanation

In AI debates, p(doom) means an estimated probability of disaster. The Verdon interview illustrates the term and disagreement over how useful these estimates are. [1]

Reference this explanation or suggest a correction

Explanation based on the linked sources. Claim ID: claim-term-pdoom-1e4c26398ee834b2e16dc7b8. Edition 0.22.0.

Link to this explanation · Suggest a correction · How corrections work

How it relates to the map

This chart records expressed concern, not p(doom). No probability is inferred from a dot's height. [1]

Reference this explanation or suggest a correction

Editorial interpretation or qualification. Claim ID: claim-term-pdoom-25f52a21ad9f2e54a62ed1b2. Edition 0.22.0.

Link to this explanation · Suggest a correction · How corrections work

Share this page

https://theaiatlas.org/ideas/pdoom/

Download a share image · Vector image

Image previews are summaries. Keep the page link so readers can check the evidence.

Sources and what we read

  1. 1. Guillaume Verdon: e/acc, AI doomers and effective altruism (transcript #407)

    Lex Fridman Podcast · First-hand source · Published 2023-12-29 · Material last read 2026-09-16

    Source is over 18 months old.

    Publication dates and source age

    Sources counted: 1

    Newest dated source: 2023-12-29

    Assessed at this edition's evidence cutoff: 2026-09-16. 18-month boundary: 2025-03-16.

    Publication age does not tell us whether a claim is still valid. Reading an old source again does not make its publication date newer. An update date does not establish that the passage we used was updated.

    What we read: Introduction, p(doom) discussion from 57:56, AI doomers section from 2:26:27 and effective altruism section. These are attributed views; the transcript may contain errors.

    No archive check recorded.

    Read the AI doomers and effective altruism sections as examples of contested terminology. An advocate's description of opponents is not a neutral definition of their views. Transcript may contain errors.

    Source ID: verdon-interview

  2. 2. Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI (version 3)

    Katja Grace and colleagues / arXiv · First-hand source · Published 2024-01-05 · Updated 2025-10-08 · Material last read 2026-09-16

    Source is over 18 months old.

    Publication dates and source age

    Sources counted: 1

    Newest dated source: 2024-01-05

    Assessed at this edition's evidence cutoff: 2026-09-16. 18-month boundary: 2025-03-16.

    Publication age does not tell us whether a claim is still valid. Reading an old source again does not make its publication date newer. An update date does not establish that the passage we used was updated.

    What we read: Abstract, introduction, section 2, sections 4.2–4.3 and 5.2 of version 3; not the full paper or appendices.

    No archive check recorded.

    Read selected sections only. Survey estimates express respondents' beliefs; they do not measure future disaster rates.

    Source ID: grace-ai-authors-survey-2024

Edition and machine-readable evidence

Content version 0.22.0. Evidence cutoff 2026-09-16; this does not mean every source was read on that day.

Pinned complete dataset · Complete evidence page · Agent consumption guide