Back
Existential Risk Persuasion Tournament (XPT) Results
webforecastingresearch.org·forecastingresearch.org/xpt
A key empirical reference for quantitative existential risk estimates; frequently cited in AI safety discourse to contextualize AI risk relative to other global catastrophic threats.
Metadata
Importance: 72/100organizational reportdataset
Summary
The Existential Risk Persuasion Tournament (XPT) aggregated probabilistic forecasts from 169 participants—including domain experts, forecasting specialists, and superforecasters—on humanity's extinction risks by 2100. The tournament examined threats including AI, nuclear war, engineered pandemics, and other catastrophic risks, using structured deliberation and persuasion rounds to update estimates. It provides one of the most systematic crowd-sourced quantitative assessments of existential risk probabilities available.
Key Points
- •169 participants produced probabilistic forecasts on human extinction and civilization collapse risks by 2100 across multiple threat categories.
- •AI was identified as a major concern, with participants assigning notable probability to AI-related existential catastrophe.
- •The tournament used persuasion rounds where participants could update forecasts after reviewing arguments, testing whether expert deliberation shifts risk estimates.
- •Results offer rare quantitative benchmarks for comparing AI risk against other existential threats like nuclear war and engineered pandemics.
- •Findings are relevant to prioritization decisions in AI safety and global catastrophic risk funding and policy.
Review
The XPT represents an innovative approach to understanding complex existential risks by bringing together accurate forecasters and domain experts in a structured, collaborative prediction environment. By incentivizing participants to discuss, explain, and update their forecasts, the tournament aimed to generate high-quality insights into potential catastrophic scenarios facing humanity in the next century. The methodology's key strength lies in its interactive format, which allows participants to engage directly with different perspectives and potentially refine their predictions through structured dialogue. Of particular interest are the observed differences between superforecasters and expert perspectives, especially regarding the likelihood of catastrophic outcomes. The researchers noted intriguing discrepancies, such as why superforecasters seemed less concerned about extreme risks despite agreeing on many fundamental points. This approach provides a novel framework for exploring how expertise, forecasting skill, and interdisciplinary knowledge interact when assessing long-term global risks.
Cited by 3 pages
| Page | Type | Quality |
|---|---|---|
| Forecasting Research Institute (FRI) | Organization | 55.0 |
| XPT (Existential Risk Persuasion Tournament) | Project | 54.0 |
| Instrumental Convergence | Risk | 64.0 |
Resource ID:
5c91c25b0c337e1b | Stable ID: NGFmMmYyM2