The expert opinion argument said that experts put "substantial credence (e.g. 5%) on human extinction."
I'm guessing the downward shift comes from (A) some bias that makes people say a higher p(doom) than their true credence (I think the world would look quite different if the median person on the street really expected a 1/9 chance of ex…
The expert opinion argument said that experts put "substantial credence (e.g. 5%) on human extinction."
I'm guessing the downward shift comes from (A) some bias that makes people say a higher p(doom) than their true credence (I think the world would look quite different if the median person on the street really expected a 1/9 chance of extinction), followed by (B) shifting that number in the direction of the example expert number.
The expert opinion argument said that experts put "substantial credence (e.g. 5%) on human extinction."
I'm guessing the downward shift comes from (A) some bias that makes people say a higher p(doom) than their true credence (I think the world would look quite different if the median person on the street really expected a 1/9 chance of extinction), followed by (B) shifting that number in the direction of the example expert number.