p(doom)p(doom) goes viralThe term "p(doom)" went viral in 2023. I was aware that I was an early user of this term - so I did some searches to establish where it was first used. On June 5, 2023 I tweeted:
The "p(doom)" term has gone viral. I think I may have come up with it. I've been using it since at least 2009 - with numerous of references in 2010".
Early referencesAs evidence, I linked to this 2009 article and this 2010 article. The articles are on a site where the comments can be down-voted so they no longer show up in searches - so I will take the liberty of reproducing some of the comments here:
I was wondering why p(doom) has apparently been so consistently overestimated. Perhaps another possible reason is attention-seeking. When Martin Rees mentioned a probability of 0.5 on p.8 of "Our Final Century", people paid attention. Politicians are in on the act as well - check out Al Gore. Doom sells. Perhaps scaring people shitless is simply good marketing.
Also there will be a selection bias, with those most convinced of a high p(DOOM) most likely to be involved. Like I said, not necessarily the type of organisation one would want to approach if seeking the facts of the matter.
Anyway, the basic point is that if you are interested in DOOM, or p(DOOM), consulting a DOOM-mongering organisation, that wants your dollars to help them SAVE THE WORLD may not be your best move. The "follow the money" principle is simple - and often produces good results.
If p(DOOM) gets really large, the correct strategy might change. If it turns into a collective action problem with punishment for free riders, the correct strategy might change. However, often THE END OF THE WORLD can be rationally perceived to be someone else's problem. Expending resources fighting DOOM usually just means you get gradually squeezed out of the gene pool.
Evidence which does more strongly relate to p(DOOM) includes the extent to which we look back and see the ashes of previous failed technological civilisations, and past major mishaps.
There are sociological and memetic explanations for the "THE END IS NIGH" phenomenon that are more-or-less independent of the actual value of p(DOOM). I think these should be studied more, and applied to this case - so that we can better see what is left over. One thing to note is that I was pretty sceptical about doom at the time. This also comes across in my 2009 video on the topic. p(doom) was born of ridicule. As you can see from some of the quotes, I frequently capitalized "DOOM" and "THE END OF THE WORLD" and "THE END IS NIGH". Capitals means shouting. I was implying that maybe the DOOM enthusiasts were suffering from hysteria.
p(doom) in the New York TimesThe NYT reporter Kevin Roose interviewed me and then attributed the term to me in a "HardFork" article on the topic. He wrote:
My best guess is that the term was coined by Tim Tyler, a Boston-based programmer who used it on LessWrong starting in 2009. Not much of the interview made it into the article. However, I tweeted some of my replies to Kevin's interview questions in a thread here.
p(doom) links
p(doom) estimatesp(doom) backlashNot everyone is happy about the way that p(doom) is framing the discussion. There have been some "pushback" articles:
|
