Claim · 2025-03 · publication · Stated in source · Supported

How Much Should We Spend to Reduce A.I.'s Existential Risk? cites Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk.

One recorded claim. The claim panel gives its qualification, the source passages with their place in each source, and how it was checked.

What it connects

How Much Should We Spend to Reduce A.I.'s Existential Risk? → cites → Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk

Where it appears

No collection page holds this claim. It is listed with its records in the explorer.

Claim and evidence

How Much Should We Spend to Reduce A.I.'s Existential Risk?cites ↓Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk

Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editorStated in sourceSupported

Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source

Date: 2025-03 · publication Records dated 2025 →

Scope and limitsAn explicit reference only; neither agreement nor influence. The citing text does not identify which version of the work was read.

The evidence 01

primary sourceSupports the claim

How Much Should We Spend to Reduce A.I.'s Existential Risk?

NBER Working Paper 33602 · 2025-03

Cite the original source

Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.

Paraphrase

The text names the work by its title.

Location in source PDF p. 23, reference or mention by title

Machine-checked · 2026-10-31

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, key papers (research/key-papers). The citation was matched (title) in the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-28 and re-found by its mechanical check. The paraphrase is Selekoa’s. No human editorial review.

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. An explicit reference to a work. Citation alone is neither agreement nor causal influence.

Date. Date of the citing source as recorded in the dataset; unknown where the dataset has none.

Record ID kp-cites-jones-2025-spend-to-reduce-ai-existential-risk-ai-positive-negative-factor-global-risk