# Why do Experts Disagree on Existential Risk and P(doom)? A Survey of AI Experts

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.14870 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.14870/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 5 of its 29 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 Jan 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [AI Alignment: A Comprehensive Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.19852/) (2023)
- [The Off-Switch Game](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1611.08219/) (2016)
- [Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.02843/) (2024)
- [AGI Safety Literature Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.01109/) (2018)
- [Forecasting AI Progress: Evidence from a Survey of Machine Learning Researchers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.04132/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [The Singapore Consensus on Global AI Safety Research Priorities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.20702/) (2025)
- [The Economics of p(doom): Scenarios of Existential Risk and Economic Growth in the Age of Transformative AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.07341/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The development of artificial general intelligence (AGI) is likely to be one of humanity's most consequential technological advancements. Leading AI labs and scientists have called for the global prioritization of AI safety citing existential risks comparable to nuclear war. However, research on catastrophic risks and AI alignment is often met with skepticism, even by experts. Furthermore, online debate over the existential risk of AI has begun to turn tribal (e.g. name-calling such as "doomer" or "accelerationist"). Until now, no systematic study has explored the patterns of belief and the levels of familiarity with AI safety concepts among experts. I surveyed 111 AI experts on their familiarity with AI safety concepts, key objections to AI safety, and reactions to safety arguments. My findings reveal that AI experts cluster into two viewpoints -- an "AI as controllable tool" and an "AI as uncontrollable agent" perspective -- diverging in beliefs toward the importance of AI safety. While most experts (78%) agreed or strongly agreed that "technical AI researchers should be concerned about catastrophic risks", many were unfamiliar with specific AI safety concepts. For example, only 21% of surveyed experts had heard of "instrumental convergence," a fundamental concept in AI safety predicting that advanced AI systems will tend to pursue common sub-goals (such as self-preservation). The least concerned participants were the least familiar with concepts like this, suggesting that effective communication of AI safety should begin with establishing clear conceptual foundations in the field.