THE P(DOOM) INDEX
Public whiteboard · explainer. No snapshot number on this page

How the number is made

A clinical instrument: an actuarial register of published judgments.

Sketch page. No live index number here
1 · What it is

An index of published judgments

This site publishes an index: a number built from other people’s published numbers. Named researchers, surveys, and forecasting tournaments have written down probabilities. The site mixes those judgments, applies a small documented adjustment for current news, and stamps the result with a date.

This is an index of published judgments, not a measurement of the future. You cannot read “chance of catastrophe” off a meter. The honest product is a mix you can reproduce, with every site choice written down.

A published judgment is a number a named person or instrument stated in a citable source (a book, a paper, a survey table, a recorded interview).

A news rubric is a written list of which current events may nudge the index, and by how little. Vibes do not count.

A · Judgments in, index out
In

Named sources

People and instruments who published a number. On the record, dated, cited.

Mix

One point + a band

The site mixes eligible numbers. You still see the disagreement. A bare % is not allowed.

Nudge

Small news dial

News can move the mix a little. Hard stops on both sides.

Out

Dated snapshot

The site publishes it with an as-of date. No live ticker.

The pipeline mixes published forecasts into a dated index.
2 · The three gauges

Three readouts

The site keeps three gauges. All three concern harm caused by AI. The headline mix uses the year 2100.

G1, catastrophe is the headline. It reports the probability of an AI-caused event that kills at least 10% of humanity, or irreversibly collapses industrial civilization, by 2100.

That definition is broader than extinction. A collapse that leaves people alive still counts.

G2, extinction is a sub-gauge. Literal human extinction from AI, by 2100. Shown beside G1. Kept out of the headline mix.

G3, mundane-deployment cascade is first-class. It stays on the page. It tracks premature deployment of not-ready AI into critical systems (grid, military command, health, finance, logistics) compounding faster than verification, liability, or regulation can catch it.

G1 and G3 stay separate. When the ledger has no published forecast of this exact event, the site labels G3 constructed: a site-built picture of the thesis. Constructed is not an aggregate of published numbers. The gauge is drawn differently so it cannot wear a percentage that pretends to be a mix of sources.

B · Three gauges
G1 · Headline · big

Catastrophe

AI-caused. At least 10% of humanity dead, or irreversible industrial collapse. By 2100. This is the number on the front of the site.

G2 · Sub-gauge · smaller

Extinction

Literal human extinction from AI, by 2100. Beside the headline. Kept out of G1.

G3 · First-class · different on purpose

Deployment cascade

Not-ready AI pushed into critical systems faster than oversight. Collapse-shaped. On every snapshot.

Constructedno published forecasts. Not an aggregate
3 · How G1 is built

Named numbers, a band, and a dated stamp

Four steps, in this order.

Collect. Take named people and instruments who published a number that matches this question (catastrophe, this horizon). Books, papers, expert surveys, forecasting tournaments. A paraphrase, an unverified quote, and a different question stay off the mix.

Mix. Turn the eligible numbers into one point. Draw a band around it for how far those sources disagree. The point without the band is not allowed.

Nudge. A news multiplier may move the mix inside tight bounds. The mix is the expert baseline. The nudge is current conditions. You can read both.

Stamp. Publish a snapshot with an as-of date.

Sources that do not qualify still sit on a public ledger, the full list of candidates. Inclusion on the list is not inclusion in the mix.

C · Band + point
sketch, not a live snapshot low high the mix the band is disagreement among published sources
Tick = the mixed point Shaded range = how far the sources disagree A bare % would hide this band
A single percentage with no band hides disagreement among sources. The band shows that spread.
4 · News multiplier

Current conditions may move it a little

The news multiplier lets current events change the index. They sit inside a bound smaller than the disagreement already on the record.

Published experts already disagree by a wide margin. News may move the index by a fraction of that disagreement. The dial has hard stops.

Every movement is a row on a public event ledger: date, what happened, which way, how much. “Nothing moved” is also a row.

D · A small dial with hard stops
NEUTRAL DOWN UP HARD STOP HARD STOP

The needle travels between pins

News cannot double the number or cut it in half. A vendor demo does not score. An independent, dated, checkable fact might.

Blue = what would move it down Rust = what would move it up
Moves are logged and capped.

What would move it down

  • Binding liability or a real treaty constraint on frontier deployment
  • Independent, replicated safety results
  • Documented rollback from a critical system, or restored human-in-the-loop
  • A long quiet stretch without a qualifying severe incident
  • The heaviest published sources revising their numbers down

What would move it up

  • Not-ready AI documented in a sensitive system (grid, command, clinic, core finance, logistics)
  • A verified capability leap on an independent test, not a lab blog post
  • A qualifying severe incident
  • Documented racing. Rhetoric alone does not score.
  • Binding constraints weakening or dying
5 · Honesty strip

Rules that stay on the page

Attributable sources

Every scored number cites a named source. Every movement cites a logged event. If you cannot point at the row, it does not belong in the mix.

Uncertainty always shown

A point with no band is not publishable. Disagreement is part of the number. Dropping the band would be an editorial act.

Outliers can appear without scoring

A loud figure that cannot be pinned to a primary quote still sits on the ledger. Shown is not scored. The list is not the statistic.

G3 looks different on purpose

When there are no published forecasts of that event, the site does not fake an aggregate. Constructed stays labeled constructed.

The index is not a prediction market, a personal p(doom), or a countdown. No ads.

In one sitting

Is this a measurement?
No. An index of published judgments, conditioned by a documented news rubric.
What is the headline asking?
G1. Probability that AI causes a catastrophe (at least 10% of humanity dead, or irreversible industrial collapse) by 2100.
Why does G3 look different?
No published forecasts of that exact event yet, so G3 is constructed. Constructed is not mixed.
Can news move the number a lot or a little?
A little. Hard stops on the dial. Every move, including no move, is a logged event. What would move it down sits beside what would move it up.

The full protocol (eligibility, mixing, bounds, ledgers) is methodology v0.1. This page is the public whiteboard. That document is the instrument manual.