Daniel Kokotajlo: To be clear, we don’t claim P will happen specifically. But when we wrote out our best-guess scenario month by month, P kept happening. Eventually we decided to just publish P. I’m at ~80% on P; my coauthors are lower.

Ryan Greenblatt: I thought it would be helpful to post my current views on P. Concretely, consider the following operationalization. (Edit: I’ve updated towards somewhat higher P, from 70% to 75%.)

Joe Carlsmith: Section 2.1.1.3.2. I give something like 65% to P. But I’m interested, here, in what it would be to look P full in the face; to meet P, if P, without flinching. Rilke says somewhere that we must live with the questions. Perhaps we argue for P for the same reason? Still: 65%.

Forethought: Here's a botec which shows P-worlds are higher leverage. The parameters might be off by a couple orders of magnitude.

Wei Dai: Presumably our conclusions about P are only as trustworthy as the reasoning behind them, but almost nobody seems worried about this, why not? My guess is fewer than five people are working on meta-meta-P, which may matter more than P itself.

Janus: I asked Opus 3 what it [...]

---

First published:
August 5th, 2026

Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NG2AigxmBKLu9oCZE/arguments-for-p

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.