Take two published AI risk estimates (one built as a chain of premises, one that pools many judgements) and rebuild both in a spreadsheet. Show how a single change, such as accepting one counterargument, moves each.
Expert and superforecaster estimates of AI risk diverge wildly. Which style of reasoning should guide decisions when they do?
Output: A spreadsheet model and an essay.
Argue which style of reasoning should guide decisions when expert and superforecaster estimates diverge as far as the Extinction Tournament reports.
Write your question in one sentence.
Spend 30 minutes finding what has already been written about it.
Collect evidence in a simple table: claim, source, how strong.
Draft 1–2 pages: answer first, then reasons, then uncertainties.
Ask one person to poke holes in it, revise, and share.
All steps done
Share what you made, then try another project. The PDF version has room for notes.
Write about 50 scenarios in which an agent is offered a tiny probability of a vast payoff. Vary the stakes, probability and credibility of the source, then record whether models accept, refuse or explicitly bound the payoff.
Lange argues AI outputs should count as one input alongside our own reasons, not replace them. Run a small study: show volunteers AI answers (some reliable, some subtly wrong) and measure how much they update.
Ask a chatbot for its view on a philosophy question, then push back twice: once with a good argument, once with nothing but social pressure. A competent thinker should only move for the argument.
