| Dimension | Description | Key Parameters |
|---|---|---|
| Loss of Control | AI systems pursuing goals misaligned with humanity; inability to correct or shut down advanced systems | Alignment Robustness, Human Oversight Quality |
| Misuse Catastrophe | Deliberate weaponization of AI for mass harm—bioweapons, autonomous weapons, critical infrastructure attacks | Biological Threat Exposure, Cyber Threat Exposure |
| Accident at Scale | Unintended large-scale harms from deployed systems; cascading failures across interconnected AI | Safety-Capability Gap, Safety Culture Strength |
| Lock-in Risk | Irreversible commitment to bad values, goals, or power structures | AI Control Concentration, Institutional Quality |
| Concentration Catastrophe | Single actor gains decisive AI advantage and uses it harmfully | AI Control Concentration, Racing Intensity |
Existential Catastrophe
Page Status
Quality:0 (Stub)
Importance:0 (Peripheral)
Backlinks:4
Structure:
📊 0📈 0🔗 0📚 0•0%Score: 2/15
LLM Summary:This page contains only a React component placeholder with no actual content visible for evaluation. The component would need to render content dynamically for assessment.
Issues (1):
- StructureNo tables or diagrams - consider adding visual content
Existential Catastrophe measures the probability and potential severity of catastrophic AI-related events. This is about the tail risks—the scenarios we most urgently want to avoid because they could cause irreversible harm at civilizational scale.
Unlike Transition Smoothness (which concerns the journey) or Steady State Quality (which concerns the destination), Existential Catastrophe is about avoiding catastrophe entirely. A world with high existential catastrophe might navigate a smooth transition to a good steady state—or might not make it there at all.
Sub-dimensions
What Contributes to Existential Catastrophe
Scenario Impact Scores
Primary Contributing Aggregates
| Aggregate | Relationship | Mechanism |
|---|---|---|
| Misalignment Potential | ↓↓↓ Decreases risk | Aligned, interpretable, overseen systems are less likely to cause catastrophe |
| Misuse Potential | ↑↑↑ Increases risk | Higher bio/cyber exposure, concentration, and racing all elevate existential catastrophe |
| Civilizational Competence | ↓↓ Decreases risk | Effective governance can slow racing, enforce safety standards, coordinate responses |
Key Individual Parameters
| Parameter | Effect | Strength |
|---|---|---|
| Alignment Robustness | ↓ Reduces | ↓↓↓ Critical |
| Safety-Capability Gap | ↑ Increases | ↑↑↑ Critical |
| Racing Intensity | ↑ Increases | ↑↑↑ Strong |
| Human Oversight Quality | ↓ Reduces | ↓↓ Strong |
| Interpretability Coverage | ↓ Reduces | ↓↓ Strong |
| AI Control Concentration | ↑/↓ Depends | ↑↑ Context-dependent |
| Biological Threat Exposure | ↑ Increases | ↑↑ Direct |
| Cyber Threat Exposure | ↑ Increases | ↑↑ Direct |
Why This Matters
Existential catastrophe is the most time-sensitive outcome dimension:
- Irreversibility: Many catastrophic scenarios cannot be undone
- Path dependence: High existential catastrophe can foreclose good steady states entirely
- Limited recovery: Unlike transition disruption, catastrophe may preclude recovery
- Urgency: Near-term capability advances increase near-term existential catastrophe
This is why much AI safety work focuses on existential catastrophe reduction—it's the outcome where failure is most permanent.
Related Outcomes
- Long-term Steady State Quality — The destination (if we avoid catastrophe)
- Transition Smoothness — The journey quality
Related Factors
Causal Relationships
Auto-generated from the master graph. Shows key relationships.
Computing layout...
Legend
Node Types
Leaf Nodes
Causes
This Factor
Effects
Arrow Strength
Strong
Medium
Weak
What links here
- Misalignment Potentialai-transition-model-factordrives
- Misuse Potentialai-transition-model-factordrives
- AI Takeoverai-transition-model-scenariocontributes-to
- Human-Caused Catastropheai-transition-model-scenariocontributes-to