IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intfor/v41y2025i2p499-516.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Subjective-probability forecasts of existential risk: Initial results from a hybrid persuasion-forecasting tournament

Author

Listed:
  • Karger, Ezra
  • Rosenberg, Josh
  • Jacobs, Zachary
  • Hickman, Molly
  • Tetlock, Phillip E.

Abstract

A multi-stage persuasion-forecasting tournament asked specialists and generalists (“superforecasters”) to explain their probability judgments of short- and long-run existential threats to humanity. Specialists were more pessimistic, especially on long-run threats posed by artificial intelligence (AI). Despite incentives to share their best arguments during four months of discussion, neither side materially moved the other’s views. This would be puzzling if participants were Bayesian agents methodically sifting through elusive clues about distant futures but it is less puzzling if participants were boundedly rational agents searching for confirmatory evidence as the risks of embarrassing accuracy feedback receded. Consistent with the latter mechanism, strong AI-risk proponents made particularly extreme long- but not short-range forecasts and over-estimated the long-range AI-risk forecasts of others. We stress the potential of these methods to inform high-stakes debates, but we acknowledge limits on what even skilled forecasters can achieve in anticipating rare or unprecedented events.

Suggested Citation

  • Karger, Ezra & Rosenberg, Josh & Jacobs, Zachary & Hickman, Molly & Tetlock, Phillip E., 2025. "Subjective-probability forecasts of existential risk: Initial results from a hybrid persuasion-forecasting tournament," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 499-516.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:intfor:v:41:y:2025:i:2:p:499-516
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2024.11.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169207024001250
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2024.11.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nick Bostrom, 2019. "The Vulnerable World Hypothesis," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 10(4), pages 455-476, November.
    2. Yaniv, Ilan & Kleinberger, Eli, 2000. "Advice Taking in Decision Making: Egocentric Discounting and Reputation Formation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 260-281, November.
    3. Dražen Prelec & H. Sebastian Seung & John McCoy, 2017. "A solution to the single-question crowd wisdom problem," Nature, Nature, vol. 541(7638), pages 532-535, January.
    4. Rowe, Gene & Wright, George, 1999. "The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 353-375, October.
    5. Victor Richmond R. Jose & Robert L. Winkler, 2009. "Evaluating Quantile Assessments," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 1287-1297, October.
    6. Scott E. Page, 2007. "Prologue to The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies," Introductory Chapters, in: The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies, Princeton University Press.
    7. Bonaccio, Silvia & Dalal, Reeshad S., 2006. "Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 127-151, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Soll, Jack B. & Mannes, Albert E., 2011. "Judgmental aggregation strategies depend on whether the self is involved," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 81-102, January.
    2. Bolger, Fergus & Rowe, Gene & Belton, Ian & Crawford, Megan M & Hamlin, Iain & Sissons, Aileen & Taylor Browne Lūka, Courtney & Vasilichi, Alexandrina & Wright, George, 2020. "The Simulated Group Response Paradigm: A new approach to the study of opinion change in Delphi and other structured-group techniques," OSF Preprints 4ufzg, Center for Open Science.
    3. Petropoulos, Fotios & Apiletti, Daniele & Assimakopoulos, Vassilios & Babai, Mohamed Zied & Barrow, Devon K. & Ben Taieb, Souhaib & Bergmeir, Christoph & Bessa, Ricardo J. & Bijak, Jakub & Boylan, Joh, 2022. "Forecasting: theory and practice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 705-871.
      • Fotios Petropoulos & Daniele Apiletti & Vassilios Assimakopoulos & Mohamed Zied Babai & Devon K. Barrow & Souhaib Ben Taieb & Christoph Bergmeir & Ricardo J. Bessa & Jakub Bijak & John E. Boylan & Jet, 2020. "Forecasting: theory and practice," Papers 2012.03854, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    4. Winkler, Jens & Moser, Roger, 2016. "Biases in future-oriented Delphi studies: A cognitive perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 63-76.
    5. Soll, Jack B. & Mannes, Albert E., 2011. "Judgmental aggregation strategies depend on whether the self is involved," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 81-102.
    6. Baer, Markus & Brown, Graham, 2012. "Blind in one eye: How psychological ownership of ideas affects the types of suggestions people adopt," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 60-71.
    7. Gehrig, Thomas & Güth, Werner & Leví0nský, René & Popova, Vera, 2010. "On the evolution of professional consulting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 113-126, October.
    8. Logg, Jennifer M. & Minson, Julia A. & Moore, Don A., 2019. "Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 90-103.
    9. Amaral, Christopher & Kolsarici, Ceren, 2020. "The financial advice puzzle: The role of consumer heterogeneity in the advisor choice," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    10. Julia A. Minson & Jennifer S. Mueller & Richard P. Larrick, 2018. "The Contingent Wisdom of Dyads: When Discussion Enhances vs. Undermines the Accuracy of Collaborative Judgments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(9), pages 4177-4192, September.
    11. Makkonen, Marika & Hujala, Teppo & Uusivuori, Jussi, 2016. "Policy experts' propensity to change their opinion along Delphi rounds," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 61-68.
    12. Chen Li & Ning Liu, 2021. "What to tell? Wise communication and wise crowd," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(2), pages 279-299, March.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:3:p:349-363 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Jodlbauer, Barbara & Jonas, Eva, 2011. "Forecasting clients' reactions: How does the perception of strategic behavior influence the acceptance of advice?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 121-133, January.
    15. Irene Scopelliti & Carey K. Morewedge & Erin McCormick & H. Lauren Min & Sophie Lebrecht & Karim S. Kassam, 2015. "Bias Blind Spot: Structure, Measurement, and Consequences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(10), pages 2468-2486, October.
    16. Kausel, Edgar E. & Culbertson, Satoris S. & Leiva, Pedro I. & Slaughter, Jerel E. & Jackson, Alexander T., 2015. "Too arrogant for their own good? Why and when narcissists dismiss advice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 33-50.
    17. Albert E. Mannes, 2009. "Are We Wise About the Wisdom of Crowds? The Use of Group Judgments in Belief Revision," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(8), pages 1267-1279, August.
    18. Avery, Christopher & Castleman, Benjamin L. & Hurwitz, Michael & Long, Bridget Terry & Page, Lindsay C., 2021. "Digital messaging to improve college enrollment and success," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    19. Camacho, N.M.A. & de Jong, M.G. & Stremersch, S., 2014. "The Effect of Customer Empowerment on Adherence to Expert Advice," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2014-005-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    20. Förster, Bernadette, 2015. "Technology foresight for sustainable production in the German automotive supplier industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 237-248.
    21. Jon Atwell & Marlon Twyman II, 2023. "Metawisdom of the Crowd: How Choice Within Aided Decision Making Can Make Crowd Wisdom Robust," Papers 2308.15451, arXiv.org.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:intfor:v:41:y:2025:i:2:p:499-516. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijforecast .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.