Scott provides detailed probabilistic timelines and beliefs about AGI development, AI safety, geopolitics, and future outcomes, with his median expectation being AGI in 2031 and 20% probability of existential catastrophe given current safety efforts.

Scott reviews a new book by Yudkowsky and Soares that makes an uncompromising case for halting AI development to prevent human extinction, analyzing both its arguments and its potential impact as a call to action.

Scott Alexander refutes Freddie deBoer's argument against expecting major events in our lifetimes, presenting a more nuanced approach to estimating such probabilities.

Scott Alexander reviews a debate on AI development pauses, discussing various strategies and their potential impacts on AI safety and progress.

Scott Alexander analyzes the surprisingly low existential risk estimates from a recent forecasting tournament, particularly for AI risk, and explains why he only partially updates his own higher estimates.

Scott Alexander discusses various scenarios of AI takeover based on the Compute-Centric Framework, exploring gradual power shifts and potential conflicts between humans and AI factions.

Scott Alexander critiques Tyler Cowen's use of the 'Safe Uncertainty Fallacy' in discussing AI risk, arguing that uncertainty doesn't justify complacency.

Scott Alexander narrates a haunting pre-dawn walk through San Francisco, mixing observations with apocalyptic musings before the spell is broken by sunrise.

Scott Alexander examines optimistic and pessimistic scenarios for AI risk, weighing the potential for intermediate AIs to help solve alignment against the threat of deceptive 'sleeper agent' AIs.

Scott Alexander uses Kelly betting to argue why AI development, unlike other technologies, poses too great a risk to civilization to pursue aggressively.

Scott Alexander reviews Will MacAskill's 'What We Owe The Future', a book arguing for longtermism and considering our moral obligations to future generations.

Scott reviews a biography of John von Neumann, exploring the mathematician's life, genius, and views on existential risk from technology.

Scott Alexander discusses a new expert survey on long-term AI risks, highlighting the diverse scenarios considered and the lack of consensus on specific threats.

Scott Alexander reviews Toby Ord's 'The Precipice', a book about existential risks to humanity, noting Ord's careful analysis and surprisingly low risk estimates while emphasizing the importance of addressing these risks.

The post compares space colonization and terrestrial lifeboats as X-risk mitigation strategies, concluding that space colonies may offer better long-term survival guarantees despite higher costs.

Scott explains why superintelligent AI poses serious risks, how a 'fast takeoff' could leave insufficient time to solve safety problems, and why even simple-sounding goals could lead to catastrophic outcomes without proper alignment research.

Scott Alexander critiques the argument that terrorism is less concerning than mundane accidents, showing how excluding 'outlier' events can dangerously skew risk assessments for threats like terrorism and pandemics.

Scott Alexander critiques Dylan Matthews' argument against prioritizing existential risk reduction, arguing that Matthews misuses probabilities and that his logic could also undermine other effective altruist causes.

Scott Alexander analyzes Moloch as a metaphor for destructive societal coordination problems, using various examples to show how competing incentives can lead to negative outcomes.

Scott Alexander argues against several popular Great Filter explanations, emphasizing that the true Filter must be more consistent and thorough than common x-risks or alien interventions.

Scott Alexander presents comprehensive results from the 2011 Less Wrong survey of 1090 respondents, covering demographics, beliefs, probability estimates on various topics, and a calibration test that shows the community performs better than average but has some calibration issues.