Back
Adversarial Collaboration on AI Risk | Wiley Online Library
paperAuthors
David Ríos Insua·David Banks·Jesus Ríos·Jorge González‐Ortega
Credibility Rating
4/5
High(4)High quality. Established institution or organization with editorial oversight and accountability.
Rating inherited from publication venue: Wiley Online Library
A peer-reviewed journal article on adversarial collaboration approaches to AI risk, published in Risk Analysis through Wiley. This work likely explores how structured disagreement between AI safety researchers can improve risk assessment and mitigation strategies.
Paper Details
Citations
0
Year
2017
Categories
Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online
Metadata
journal articleprimary source
Cited by 1 page
| Page | Type | Quality |
|---|---|---|
| Philip Tetlock | Person | 73.0 |
Cached Content Preview
HTTP 200Fetched Apr 9, 20261 KB
# Belief updating in AI‐risk debates: Exploring the limits of adversarial collaboration Authors: Josh Rosenberg, Ezra Karger, Zach Jacobs, Molly Hickman, Avital Morris, Harrison Durland, Otto Kuusela, Philip E. Tetlock Journal: Risk Analysis Published: 2025-12 DOI: 10.1111/risa.70023 ## Abstract Abstract We organized adversarial collaborations between subject‐matter experts and expert forecasters with opposing views on whether recent advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) pose an existential threat to humanity in the 21st century. Two studies incentivized participants to engage in respectful perspective‐taking, to share their strongest arguments, and to propose early‐warning indicator questions (cruxes) for the probability of an AI‐related catastrophe by 2100. AI experts saw greater threats from AI than did expert forecasters, and neither group changed its long‐term risk estimates, but they did preregister cruxes whose resolution by 2030 would sway their views on long‐term risk. These persistent differences shrank as questioning moved across centuries, from 2100 to 2500 and beyond, by which time both groups put the risk of extreme negative outcomes from AI at 30%–40%. Future research should address the generalizability of these results beyond our sample to alternative samples of experts, and beyond the topic area of AI to other questions and time frames.
Resource ID:
7fb4e86ee58c8e1c | Stable ID: ZDE1ZTIzOT