# AI Survival Stories: a Taxonomic Analysis of AI Existential Risk

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.09765 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.09765/

## Key facts

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.08361/) (2020)
- [Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03741/) (2017)
- [The Curse of Recursion: Training on Generated Data Makes Models Forget](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17493/) (2023)
- [An Overview of Catastrophic AI Risks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.12001/) (2023)
- [Deep Learning: A Critical Appraisal](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1801.00631/) (2018)
- [Do the Rewards Justify the Means? Measuring Trade-Offs Between Rewards and Ethical Behavior in the MACHIAVELLI Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03279/) (2023)
- [Goal Misgeneralization: Why Correct Specifications Aren't Enough For Correct Goals](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.01790/) (2022)
- [The Shutdown Problem: An AI Engineering Puzzle for Decision Theorists](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04471/) (2024)
- [What does it take to catch a Chinchilla? Verifying Rules on Large-Scale Neural Network Training via Compute Monitoring](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11341/) (2023)

## 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.