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

TL;DR

This survey of 111 AI experts reveals divergent beliefs about AI safety, with many unfamiliar with key safety concepts, highlighting the need for clearer communication and understanding of AI risks among researchers.

Contribution

First systematic study exploring belief patterns and familiarity with AI safety concepts among AI experts, identifying knowledge gaps and ideological clusters.

Findings

78% of experts see AI safety as important

Only 21% knew about instrumental convergence

Familiarity correlates with safety concern levels

Abstract

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.