Choose an institution to see its records and dossier, or choose a topic.
Through year 2027 · all records, including scheduled dates 2026 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2008 2005 1965 Show Organisations and infrastructure All types Organisation Person Document Concept Infrastructure Public body Reset filters
94 people, organisations and other records · 122 relationships · 34 claims about a valueEverything recorded up to the chosen year, whether or not still in effect · Undated records included
Claim and evidence Close ×
Jones, “The A.I. Dilemma: Growth versus Existential Risk” (2023-11) articulates E03. The abstract sets growth gains against existential risk, which it attributes to 'many experts', and frames the paper as a welfare analysis of whether to continue or stop. First of four insights: 'With log utility, the models are remarkably unconcerned with existential risk'. Insight 2 says CRRA utility with γ of 2 or more is 'quite conservative'. Key Point 3: with γ ≤ 1 any risk short of sure annihilation is acceptable for an immediate singularity; with γ = 2 or 3 the cutoffs are much smaller. The 'key exception' to the conservative result: mortality gains are 'in the same units' as existential risk. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Stated in source Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source
Date 2023-11 · publication Role Articulation Register (kind of text) Nonfiction Scope of the passage A model scenario under stated conditions, not the author’s own claim. Tier Tier 1. NBER working paper (core venue); Jones is an economist. Conditions (E03-11) Log utility; simple static model. (E03-12) γ = 3; immediate singularity with infinite consumption; no A.I. mortality improvement; ρ − b = 1%, g0 = 2%, m0 = 1%, v(c0) = 6. (E03-13) If A.I.-driven innovation extends life expectancy and reduces mortality. Scope and limits (First passage) NBER w31837, November 2023; later published in AER: Insights (December 2024). The risk is taken as a modelled parameter; the paper does not estimate its probability. (Second passage) NBER w31837, November 2023; later published in AER: Insights (December 2024). Material quantitative claim: holds only with log utility in the paper's simple model; Jones reverses it for γ ≥ 2. Holds under log utility in Jones's model; material quantitative claim. (Third passage) NBER w31837, November 2023; later published in AER: Insights (December 2024). Material quantitative claim: the 2.6% cutoff holds only under the stated calibration (γ = 3, immediate singularity, no mortality improvement); it is not an estimate of actual risk. Holds with γ = 3, an immediate singularity and a one-time risk; material quantitative claim. (Fourth passage) NBER w31837, November 2023; later published in AER: Insights (December 2024).
The evidence 04 primary source Supports the claim
The A.I. Dilemma: Growth versus Existential Risk ↗ NBER Working Paper 31837 · 2023-11
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt · shown only with its context “This paper considers the optimal use of A.I. technology in the presence of these opportunities and risks. Under what conditions should we continue the rapid progress of A.I. and under what conditions should we stop?” Read it with this context. "These opportunities and risks" refers to the preceding abstract sentences, which name growth and the risk of human extinction.
Why: GPT cross-family check 2026-10-14, accepted 2026-10-15.
Location in source pdf p.2; Abstract
Machine-checked · 2026-10-16
Source details and check notes Authors Charles I. Jones Version Current copy (NBER PDF), no archive capture compared. Retrieved 2026-10-11. SHA-256 0ac5f541a3c7152b60866b248f66cf2733bf12f01b204161abf375463669035e. Version a reader would cite, or full text, not retrieved. Jones, C. I. (2024). The AI dilemma: Growth versus existential risk. American Economic Review: Insights, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.1257/aeri.20230570 Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-11 Language English (en) Attribution Charles I. Jones, “The A.I. Dilemma: Growth versus Existential Risk”, NBER Working Paper 31837, 2023-11. Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution. Check notes Candidate pack passage E03-10 (research/economics-mainstream/esoteric). The quotation (35 words) matched the retrieved current copy (SHA-256 0ac5f541a3c7152b60866b248f66cf2733bf12f01b204161abf375463669035e) in the pack's verification of 2026-10-15. Re-checked at admission on 2026-10-16 against a copy retrieved that day. primary source Supports the claim
The A.I. Dilemma: Growth versus Existential Risk ↗ NBER Working Paper 31837 · 2023-11
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt · shown only with its context “suggesting that large consumption gains that A.I. might deliver can be worth gambles that involve a 1-in-3 chance of extinction.” Read it with this context. The model's conditions and the author's own assessment.
Why: A model scenario, not the author's own forecast (maintainer decision D3).
Location in source pdf p.4; §1 Introduction, insight 1
Machine-checked · 2026-10-16
Source details and check notes Authors Charles I. Jones Version Current copy (NBER PDF), no archive capture compared. Retrieved 2026-10-11. SHA-256 0ac5f541a3c7152b60866b248f66cf2733bf12f01b204161abf375463669035e. Version a reader would cite, or full text, not retrieved. Jones, C. I. (2024). The AI dilemma: Growth versus existential risk. American Economic Review: Insights, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.1257/aeri.20230570 Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-11 Language English (en) Attribution Charles I. Jones, “The A.I. Dilemma: Growth versus Existential Risk”, NBER Working Paper 31837, 2023-11. Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution. Check notes Candidate pack passage E03-11 (research/economics-mainstream/esoteric). The quotation (20 words) matched the retrieved current copy (SHA-256 0ac5f541a3c7152b60866b248f66cf2733bf12f01b204161abf375463669035e) in the pack's verification of 2026-10-15. Re-checked at admission on 2026-10-16 against a copy retrieved that day. primary source Supports the claim
The A.I. Dilemma: Growth versus Existential Risk ↗ NBER Working Paper 31837 · 2023-11
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt · shown only with its context “even infinite consumption is not worth the gamble if the one-time existential risk is greater than 2.6%.” Read it with this context. The model's conditions and the author's own assessment.
Why: A model scenario, not the author's own forecast (maintainer decision D3).
Location in source pdf p.17; §3.2, Key Point 3 (Singularities)
Machine-checked · 2026-10-16
Source details and check notes Authors Charles I. Jones Version Current copy (NBER PDF), no archive capture compared. Retrieved 2026-10-11. SHA-256 0ac5f541a3c7152b60866b248f66cf2733bf12f01b204161abf375463669035e. Version a reader would cite, or full text, not retrieved. Jones, C. I. (2024). The AI dilemma: Growth versus existential risk. American Economic Review: Insights, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.1257/aeri.20230570 Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-11 Language English (en) Attribution Charles I. Jones, “The A.I. Dilemma: Growth versus Existential Risk”, NBER Working Paper 31837, 2023-11. Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution. Check notes Candidate pack passage E03-12 (research/economics-mainstream/esoteric). The quotation (17 words) matched the retrieved current copy (SHA-256 0ac5f541a3c7152b60866b248f66cf2733bf12f01b204161abf375463669035e) in the pack's verification of 2026-10-15. Re-checked at admission on 2026-10-16 against a copy retrieved that day. primary source Supports the claim
The A.I. Dilemma: Growth versus Existential Risk ↗ NBER Working Paper 31837 · 2023-11
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt · shown only with its context “Even with a future-oriented focus that comes from low discounting, A.I.-induced mortality reductions can make large existential risks bearable.” Read it with this context. The model's conditions and the author's own assessment.
Why: A model scenario, not the author's own forecast (maintainer decision D3).
Location in source pdf p.4; §1 Introduction, insight 4
Machine-checked · 2026-10-16
Source details and check notes Authors Charles I. Jones Version Current copy (NBER PDF), no archive capture compared. Retrieved 2026-10-11. SHA-256 0ac5f541a3c7152b60866b248f66cf2733bf12f01b204161abf375463669035e. Version a reader would cite, or full text, not retrieved. Jones, C. I. (2024). The AI dilemma: Growth versus existential risk. American Economic Review: Insights, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.1257/aeri.20230570 Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-11 Language English (en) Attribution Charles I. Jones, “The A.I. Dilemma: Growth versus Existential Risk”, NBER Working Paper 31837, 2023-11. Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution. Check notes Candidate pack passage E03-13 (research/economics-mainstream/esoteric). The quotation (19 words) matched the retrieved current copy (SHA-256 0ac5f541a3c7152b60866b248f66cf2733bf12f01b204161abf375463669035e) in the pack's verification of 2026-10-15. Re-checked at admission on 2026-10-16 against a copy retrieved that day. Status and meaning Editorial status. Not reviewed by an editor . An exploratory record that no editor has accepted. This status does not say whether a person has read any linked passage. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.
Relation. A passage of the document meets the proposition’s criterion. The record documents what the text states, in its register (fiction and satire are labelled); it is not evidence that the proposition is true and implies no influence on or from another text.
Date. Cover "November 2023". Journal version: AER: Insights, December 2024 (abstract page aeri2024-jones). Checked in a current copy; an archive capture was not available, so earlier bytes are not authenticated.
Record ID ec-e03-jones-2023-ai-dilemma-a