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, “How Much Should We Spend to Reduce A.I.'s Existential Risk?” (2025-03) articulates E03. Sentence continues 'in the Covid-19 pandemic'; Jones adds that mortality risk to people alive 'more than justifies spending large amounts'. Abstract follows a back-of-envelope calculation from a $10 million value of life and a 1% mortality risk. Preceded by the note that 12–33% of runs lead to zero mitigation investment (very small or hard-to-mitigate risk). After saying that valuing future generations would raise the amount. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Stated in source Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source
Date 2025-03 · 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 (E03-18) 'For most of the scenarios and parameter combinations considered'; no weight on future generations. (E03-19) Monte Carlo average over assumed parameter distributions; zero altruism to future generations. Scope and limits (First passage) NBER w33602, March 2025. Quote stops before 'Covid-19' because the cached text loses its line-break hyphen. (Second passage) NBER w33602, March 2025. Material quantitative claim: conditional on the model and its parameter ranges ('most of the scenarios'); 12–33% of Monte Carlo runs yield zero mitigation. Holds "for most of the scenarios and parameter combinations considered" in the model; material quantitative claim. (Third passage) NBER w33602, March 2025. Material quantitative claim: an average over 10 million simulations drawn from the paper's assumed uniform parameter distributions (Table 1), not an estimate of actual risk. A mean across Monte Carlo draws with the extinction risk drawn uniformly from 0–2%; the median is about 6.4% and 12–33% of runs give zero spending; material quantitative claim. (Fourth passage) NBER w33602, March 2025. 'Very likely' is Jones's judgement from the model; it presumes the risk magnitudes experts report.
The evidence 04 primary source Supports the claim
How Much Should We Spend to Reduce A.I.'s Existential Risk? ↗ NBER Working Paper 33602 · 2025-03
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 “We can model the existential risk from A.I. just like we modeled mortality” Location in source pdf p.4; §1 Introduction
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 56417f65f9c799c22def31f110fef4bd3608c259096f65e3938b95164cfd9dd1. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-11 Language English (en) Attribution Charles I. Jones, “How Much Should We Spend to Reduce A.I.'s Existential Risk?”, NBER Working Paper 33602, 2025-03. 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 E03-17 (research/economics-mainstream/esoteric). The quotation (13 words) matched the retrieved current copy (SHA-256 56417f65f9c799c22def31f110fef4bd3608c259096f65e3938b95164cfd9dd1) 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
How Much Should We Spend to Reduce A.I.'s Existential Risk? ↗ NBER Working Paper 33602 · 2025-03
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 “In the model, for most of the scenarios and parameter combinations considered, spending at least 1% of GDP annually to mitigate AI risk can be justified even without placing any value on the welfare of future generations.” 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.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 56417f65f9c799c22def31f110fef4bd3608c259096f65e3938b95164cfd9dd1. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-11 Language English (en) Attribution Charles I. Jones, “How Much Should We Spend to Reduce A.I.'s Existential Risk?”, NBER Working Paper 33602, 2025-03. 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 E03-18 (research/economics-mainstream/esoteric). The quotation (37 words) matched the retrieved current copy (SHA-256 56417f65f9c799c22def31f110fef4bd3608c259096f65e3938b95164cfd9dd1) 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
How Much Should We Spend to Reduce A.I.'s Existential Risk? ↗ NBER Working Paper 33602 · 2025-03
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 without considering the value of future generations, the average optimal mitigation share is 8.1% of GDP.” 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, Monte Carlo results
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 56417f65f9c799c22def31f110fef4bd3608c259096f65e3938b95164cfd9dd1. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-11 Language English (en) Attribution Charles I. Jones, “How Much Should We Spend to Reduce A.I.'s Existential Risk?”, NBER Working Paper 33602, 2025-03. 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 E03-19 (research/economics-mainstream/esoteric). The quotation (17 words) matched the retrieved current copy (SHA-256 56417f65f9c799c22def31f110fef4bd3608c259096f65e3938b95164cfd9dd1) 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
How Much Should We Spend to Reduce A.I.'s Existential Risk? ↗ NBER Working Paper 33602 · 2025-03
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 “But the point that we are very likely underinvesting in mitigation is already implied by a selfish perspective.” Location in source pdf p.4; §1 Introduction
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 56417f65f9c799c22def31f110fef4bd3608c259096f65e3938b95164cfd9dd1. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-11 Language English (en) Attribution Charles I. Jones, “How Much Should We Spend to Reduce A.I.'s Existential Risk?”, NBER Working Paper 33602, 2025-03. 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 E03-20 (research/economics-mainstream/esoteric). The quotation (18 words) matched the retrieved current copy (SHA-256 56417f65f9c799c22def31f110fef4bd3608c259096f65e3938b95164cfd9dd1) 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 "March 2025". Checked in a current copy; an archive capture was not available, so earlier bytes are not authenticated.
Record ID ec-e03-jones-2025-spend-to-reduce-ai-existential-risk-a