Pangram verdict · v3.3
We believe that this text is a mix of AI and human-written content.
AI likelihood · overall
MixedArticle text · 1,126 words · 11 segments analyzed
Probably not, but nobody can rule it out, and the people who build AI worry more than they did a few years ago. Nobody can measure this risk. Every number below is someone's judgment, and the answer changes with who is asked and how the question is worded. One survey shows both. In December 2024, AI Impacts asked 1,580 researchers who publish at top AI conferences for the chance of "future AI advances causing human extinction or similarly permanent and severe disempowerment of the human species." The median answer was 10%, up from 5% a year earlier. The same researchers put a median of 5% on the chance that human-level AI turns out "extremely bad (e.g. human extinction)" in the long run, the same answer as in every edition since 2016 (AI Impacts). Forecasters with strong track records give lower numbers. In mid-2026 the median superforecaster put the chance of an AI-caused catastrophe that kills more than 10% of people by 2100 at 2.4%, and the median expert at 5% (Forecasting Research Institute).
The public worries more: in September 2026, 50% of US adults told YouGov they are concerned that AI will cause the end of the human race (YouGov). Do Anthropic and OpenAI care?
Both have paused work, held back models or given up money over safety. Both also keep releasing stronger models and have loosened their own safety rules. The section on the two companies below has the record. What changed most since 2012 is the timing. In 2016 the median AI researcher gave human-level AI a 50% chance of arriving by 2061.
In the 2024 survey it was 2042 (AI Impacts). AI reached gold-medal level at the International Mathematical Olympiad in July 2025, five years before the median expert in a 2022 forecasting tournament expected it (FRI). 10% AI researchers, 2024 Median chance of human extinction or a similar permanent loss of power from future AI. 1,580 researchers. 5% Same survey Median chance that human-level AI turns out "extremely bad (e.g. human extinction)". Unchanged since 2016. 2.4% Superforecasters, 2026 Median chance of an AI-caused catastrophe that kills more than 10% of people by 2100. 50% US adults, Sept 2026 Concerned that AI will cause the end of the human race. What AI researchers, forecasters and the public say AI researchers: 5% since 2016, 10% on the direct question AI Impacts has asked people who publish at top AI conferences the same questions since 2016. The newest edition ran in December 2024 and came out in September 2026 (2016, 2022, 2023, 2024). SurveyPeople"Extremely bad"Extinction or disempowermentHuman-level AI, 50% by20163525%not asked206120227385%5%205920232,7785%5%204720241,5805%10%2042 All values are medians.
The two risk questions are worded differently. The first asks people to imagine that human-level AI exists and to split 100% across five long-run outcomes, from "extremely good" to "extremely bad (e.g.
human extinction)". The second asks for one probability of "human extinction or similarly permanent and severe disempowerment of the human species". The authors write that the two questions "are not straightforwardly comparable" (AI Impacts).
On the second question, the 2024 median was 10% "for the first time in these surveys", in the authors' words. The average was 18.3%, because a few high answers pull it up. Across three versions of the question, 12% of researchers gave zero chance and a third gave 20% or more. The middle half of the answers ran from 1% to 25%. A version about losing control, "human inability to control future advanced AI systems", got a median of 9% (10% in 2023). Only 10% of the researchers who were invited answered. The authors checked whether worried people were more likely to reply and found that "all but the least attentive to the topic had the same median: 10%" (AI Impacts). Extinction is not what most researchers worry about first.
In the same survey, 83% said "AI makes it easy to spread false information, e.g. deepfakes" deserves substantial or extreme concern. A University College London survey of 4,260 AI researchers in mid-2024 asked each person for the one thing that worries them most about AI. 3.4% named existential risk, and the most common answer was malicious use, at 10.6% (UCL). Many researchers also doubt the current path. In a 2025 survey of 475 members of AAAI, a large AI research society, 76% said "scaling up current AI approaches" is "unlikely" or "very unlikely" to produce AGI, and 70% opposed halting AGI research until full safety and control mechanisms exist (AAAI). Before this series, Vincent Müller and Nick Bostrom polled 170 people from four groups of experts in 2012 and 2013. Their average for an "extremely bad (existential catastrophe)" outcome was 18%, and their median put a 50% chance of human-level AI "around 2040-2050" (Müller and Bostrom). That poll used averages and a different set of people, so it does not line up with the table. Forecasters give lower numbers than AI experts The Forecasting Research Institute (FRI) asks the same questions of domain experts and of superforecasters, people with strong records in forecasting contests. A "catastrophe" in the table means an event caused mainly by AI in which more than 10% of the people alive die within five years. WhenQuestionExpertsSuperforecasters2022AI causes human extinction by 21003%0.38%2022AI catastrophe by 210012%2.13%2026AI catastrophe by 21005%2.4%2026AI catastrophe by 20502%1.6% Sources: 2022 tournament, May to June 2026, August to September 2026. AI catastrophe by year, median forecast, mid-2026 Grouped bar chart. Median chance of an AI-caused catastrophe in which more than 10% of people die, by 2030, 2050 and 2100. Experts: 0.3%, 2%, 5%. Superforecasters: 0.1%, 0.88%, 2.4%. US public: 1%, 3%, 7%. Forecasting Research Institute, May to June 2026. GroupBy 2030By 2050By 2100Experts0.3%2%5%Superforecasters0.1%0.88%2.4%US public1%3%7% The gap between experts and superforecasters is smaller in 2026 than in 2022.
Part of it depends on who counts as an expert: in 2022 about 42% of the experts said they had attended an effective altruism meetup, against 9% of the superforecasters (FRI). Every group links risk to speed. If AI progress by 2030 is rapid, the median expert's number for 2100 rises from 5% to 10% (FRI). On Metaculus, a public forecasting site, the community put the chance that humans go extinct before 2100, from any cause, at 2.5% on October 6, 2026 (Metaculus). Its 31 "Pro" forecasters, picked for their track records, said 7.5% on September 23 (Metaculus). Both experts and superforecasters have underestimated AI so far.
AI reached gold-medal level at the International Mathematical Olympiad in July 2025, five years before the median expert in the 2022 tournament expected it and ten years before the median superforecaster (FRI).
Famous p(doom) numbers, word for word P(doom) is shorthand for one person's chance that AI ends in disaster. People attach it to different events and time spans, so the table keeps their words.