mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

AI Survival Stories: a Taxonomic Analysis of AI Existential Risk

arXiv 2601.09765 ↗First posted 14 Jan 2026cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Since the release of ChatGPT, there has been a lot of debate about whether AI systems pose an existential risk to humanity. This paper develops a general framework for thinking about the existential risk of AI systems. We analyze a two premise argument that AI systems pose a threat to humanity. Premise one: AI systems will become extremely powerful. Premise two: if AI systems become extremely powerful, they will destroy humanity. We use these two premises to construct a taxonomy of survival stories, in which humanity survives into the far future. In each survival story, one of the two premises fails. Either scientific barriers prevent AI systems from becoming extremely powerful; or humanity bans research into AI systems, thereby preventing them from becoming extremely powerful; or extremely powerful AI systems do not destroy humanity, because their goals prevent them from doing so; or extremely powerful AI systems do not destroy humanity, because we can reliably detect and disable systems that have the goal of doing so. We argue that different survival stories face different challenges. We also argue that different survival stories motivate different responses to the threats from AI. Finally, we use our taxonomy to produce rough estimates of P(doom), the probability that humanity will be destroyed by AI.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Jan 2026.

Builds on

9 of 21 references.

References · 9

  1. 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,411
  2. 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,846
  3. 2023The Curse of Recursion: Training on Generated Data Makes Models Forgetcited by 343
  4. 2018Deep Learning: A Critical Appraisalcited by 214
  5. 2023An Overview of Catastrophic AI Riskscited by 214
  6. 2023Do the Rewards Justify the Means? Measuring Trade-Offs Between Rewards and Ethical Behavior in the MACHIAVELLI Benchmarkcited by 174
  7. 2022Goal Misgeneralization: Why Correct Specifications Aren't Enough For Correct Goalscited by 120
  8. 2024The Shutdown Problem: An AI Engineering Puzzle for Decision Theoristscited by 22
  9. 2023What does it take to catch a Chinchilla? Verifying Rules on Large-Scale Neural Network Training via Compute Monitoringcited by 20

Built on by

Not cited yet.