An analysis and evaluation of methods currently used to quantify the likelihood of existential hazards. (January 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Beard, Simon; Rowe, Thomas; Fox, James
• Is Part Of: Futures. Volume 115(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-01
• Subjects: Existential risk -- Methodologies -- Catastrophe modelling -- Subjective opinion -- Structured expert elicitation -- Doomsday argument -- Prediction markets; Economic forecasting -- Periodicals; Technological forecasting -- Periodicals; Economic policy -- Periodicals; Prévision économique -- Périodiques; Prévision technologique -- Périodiques; Politique économique -- Périodiques; Economic forecasting; Economic policy; Technological forecasting; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 330.0112
• DOI: 10.1016/j.futures.2019.102469
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0016-3287

Abstract

Highlights: The most comprehensive literature survey of studies that quantify existential risk yet produced (64 sources across 13 risk areas). The literature survey is used to inform an analysis and evaluation of different methods in relation to the challenges of rigour, uncertainty, accessibility and utility. Each method has advantages and disadvantages, but some methods, especially the Delphi technique and its relations, should be more widely considered. Many inferior quantitative estimates of Existential Risk continue to persist, even when more methodologically robust estimates exist. The community should take a more critical approach to its selection and implementation of all these methods. Abstract: This paper examines and evaluates the range of methods that have been used to make quantified claims about the likelihood of Existential Hazards. In doing so, it draws on a comprehensive literature review of such claims that we present in an appendix. The paper uses an informal evaluative framework to consider the relative merits of these methods regarding their rigour, ability to handle uncertainty, accessibility for researchers with limited resources and utility for communication and policy purposes. We conclude that while there is no uniquely best way to quantify Existential Risk, different methods have their own merits and challenges, suggesting that some may be more suited to particular purposes than others. More importantly, however, we find that, in many cases, claims based on poor implementations of each method are still frequently invoked by the Existential Risk community, despite the existence of better ones. We call for a more critical approach to methodology and the use of quantified claims by people aiming to contribute research to the management of Existential Risk, and argue that a greater awareness of the diverse methods available to these researchers should form an important part of this.