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.
Evals-driven
46 endorsers · 0 opposeCapability/risk evals gate deployment; evals are the load-bearing artefact
expertise mix
recognition mix
profiled
6/46
mean p(doom)
80%
n=1
quotes
47
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 Evals-driven; negative means it's over-represented in AI skeptic.
Evals-driven skews these tiers
- Field-leading+15pp
- Established+14pp
- Policy / meta+11pp
- Deep technical+10pp
AI skeptic skews these tiers
- Household name+29pp
- External-domain expert+12pp
endorse both (0)
No one in this slice yet.
Evals-driven only (46)