[pseudonom-]

> Ie even lower than my guess of 90% above.

These are not comparable numbers. You're comparing "fraction of people" vs "fraction of outcomes". Presumably an eye-roller assigns ~0 probability to "extremely bad" outcomes (or has a shockingly cavalier attitude toward medium-small probabilities of catastrophe).

[ke88y]

Yeah, that's correct. Stupid mistake on my part; was writing that comment in a hurry. Not sure why you're grayed out tbh. Thanks for the corrective.

> or has a shockingly cavalier attitude

Meh. Median response time was 40 seconds. The question didn't have a bounded time-frame for the risk. Five is small but non-zero. Also all of the other issues I've already pointed out.

PhD students spending half a minute and writing down a number about risk over an unbounded time-frame is totally uninformative if you want to know how seriously experts take x-risk in time-frames that are relevant to any sort of policy or decision making.

I think you and everyone else making comments about "shockingly cavalier attitude" wildly over-estimate the amount of thought and effort that respondents spend on this question. The "probability times magnitude" framing is not how normal people think about that question. I'd bet they just wrote down a small but not zero number; I'd probably write down 1 or 2 but definitely roll my eyes hard.