compare
Two strategies, side by side.
Pick any two strategies. See who endorses each, the tier mix of endorsers, the p(doom) distribution, and which people endorse both. Useful for asking are these strategies actually opposed, or does this disagreement live in builders, in policy, or in the public square.
Stance defaults to live engagement: endorses, mixed, conditional, or evolved-toward. These are people who treat the strategy as a live bet of theirs at any time. Opposers are listed separately.
RSP-style commitments
8 endorsers · 0 opposeResponsible scaling policies; labs commit to capability-tied safety
expertise mix
recognition mix
profiled
1/8
mean p(doom)
18%
n=1
quotes
10
AI skeptic
81 endorsers · 2 opposeAGI risk narratives overstated; real harms are mundane and current
expertise mix
recognition mix
profiled
35/81
mean p(doom)
0%
n=1
quotes
97
where the disagreement lives
Tier shares within profiled endorsers. Positive shift means the tier is over-represented in RSP-style commitments; negative means it's over-represented in AI skeptic.
RSP-style commitments skews these tiers
- Frontier builder+97pp
- Household name+54pp
AI skeptic skews these tiers
- Deep technical+57pp
- Field-leading+51pp
- External-domain expert+29pp
endorse both (0)
No one in this slice yet.
RSP-style commitments only (8)