A field guide to AI positions

Existential risk / x-risk

Risk category.

Dated sources are over 18 months old; other dates are unknown.

Publication dates and source age

Sources counted: 3

Newest dated source: 2021-12-27

Assessed at this edition's evidence cutoff: 2026-09-15. 18-month boundary: 2025-03-15.

Some publication dates are unknown; the newest dated source may not be the newest source overall.

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

Risks of extinction or permanent loss of human potential, in Bostrom’s framework. Researchers disagree about definitions, value judgments and how such risks should be assessed. [1] [2]

Reference this explanation or suggest a correction

Explanation based on the linked sources. Claim ID: claim-term-xrisk-1a5192ba3d7825ca26b24a72. Edition 0.20.0.

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

Limits & distinctions

A catastrophe can be devastating without being existential. Cremer and Kemp argue that risk research should distinguish factual analysis of possible extinction from ethical views about humanity’s future. Their criticism calls for broader methods and participation; it does not establish that extinction risks are absent. [1] [2] [3]

Reference this explanation or suggest a correction

Explanation based on the linked sources. Claim ID: claim-term-xrisk-09422ce4d5c74cb753a9bb98. Edition 0.20.0.

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

A fuller explanation

In Bostrom's formulation, risks that could eliminate humanity or permanently and drastically curtail its potential. Extinction is one case; not every serious harm is existential. [1]

Reference this explanation or suggest a correction

Explanation based on the linked sources. Claim ID: claim-term-xrisk-1e4c26398ee834b2e16dc7b8. Edition 0.20.0.

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

How it relates to the map

Helps define the chart's concern axis. Its severity does not determine its probability. [1]

Reference this explanation or suggest a correction

Editorial interpretation or qualification. Claim ID: claim-term-xrisk-25f52a21ad9f2e54a62ed1b2. Edition 0.20.0.

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

Share this page

https://theaiatlas.org/ideas/xrisk/

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. Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards

    Nick Bostrom · First-hand source · Published 2002 · Material last read 2026-09-15

    Source is over 18 months old.

    Publication dates and source age

    Sources counted: 1

    Newest dated source: 2002

    Assessed at this edition's evidence cutoff: 2026-09-15. 18-month boundary: 2025-03-15.

    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.

    Read scope is described in the source note.

    No archive check recorded.

    Read the definition distinguishing existential from other risks. Does not establish the likelihood of a specific scenario.

    Source ID: existential-risks

  2. 2. Democratising Risk: In Search of a Methodology to Study Existential Risk

    Carla Zoe Cremer and Luke Kemp / arXiv · First-hand source · Published 2021-12-27 · Material last read 2026-09-15

    Source is over 18 months old.

    Publication dates and source age

    Sources counted: 1

    Newest dated source: 2021-12-27

    Assessed at this edition's evidence cutoff: 2026-09-15. 18-month boundary: 2025-03-15.

    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.

    Read scope is described in the source note.

    No archive check recorded.

    Read the abstract and submission history. The authors argue for clearer definitions, plural values and better risk methods. Their criticism of one influential framework is not a finding that all catastrophe research is invalid.

    Source ID: glossary-balance-risk-methodology

  3. 3. Ethics of Artificial Intelligence

    UNESCO · First-hand source · Published date unavailable · Material last read 2026-09-15

    Publication dates and source age

    Sources counted: 1

    Publication dates are unavailable.

    Assessed at this edition's evidence cutoff: 2026-09-15. 18-month boundary: 2025-03-15.

    Some publication dates are unknown; the newest dated source may not be the newest source overall.

    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.

    Read scope is described in the source note.

    No archive check recorded.

    Read overview of rights, dignity, fairness and oversight. Recommendation adoption date is not assigned to the live page.

    Source ID: unesco-ethics

Edition and machine-readable evidence

Content version 0.20.0. Evidence cutoff 2026-09-15; this does not mean every source was read on that day.

Pinned complete dataset · Complete evidence page · Agent consumption guide