Claim · 2024-02-27 · publication · Stated in source · Supported

Belrose and Pope's essay of February 2024 argues that the counting argument for scheming in Carlsmith's report rests on an incorrect application of the principle of indifference, and that once the principle is rejected there is very little reason left to expect future AIs to become schemers.

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

Counting arguments provide no evidence for AI doom → contests → Inner or deceptive misalignment

Where it appears

Arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI →

Claim and evidence

Counting arguments provide no evidence for AI doomcontests ↓Inner or deceptive misalignment

Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editorStated in sourceSupported

Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source

Date: 2024-02-27 · publication Records dated 2024 →
Role: Contesting
Register (kind of text): Nonfiction
Engagement: Engages a premise. It disputes the counting argument, the premise that more possible goals are compatible with scheming than with alignment.

Scope and limitsRecords the essay's critique of one argument for scheming; it does not report evidence about trained systems' goals.

The evidence 02

primary sourceSupports the claim

Counting arguments provide no evidence for AI doom

AI Optimism (optimists.ai), the authors' blog · 2024-02-27

Cite the original source

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

Source excerpt

“they rest on an incorrect application of the principle of indifference”

Location in source Introduction

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-10-31

Source details and check notes

Authors: Nora Belrose; Quintin Pope
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 2d5490c57aa2370bec464b9e4680bb0ac92e95b10416fd648b16e097021a1903). Current page as served on 2026-10-29, posted 27 February 2024; the page carries a later timestamp of 10 March 2024. The cross-family check retrieved it again on 2026-10-31; the bytes differ, and the check compared the quoted passages.
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-10-29
Language: English (en)
Attribution: Nora Belrose, Quintin Pope, “Counting arguments provide no evidence for AI doom”, 2024-02-27.
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, arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI (research/risk-debate). The quotation (11 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. No human editorial review.

primary sourceSupports the claim

Counting arguments provide no evidence for AI doom

AI Optimism (optimists.ai), the authors' blog · 2024-02-27

Cite the original source

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

Source excerpt

“Once we reject the indifference principle, there is very little reason left to worry that future AIs will become schemers.”

Location in source Introduction

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-10-31

Source details and check notes

Authors: Nora Belrose; Quintin Pope
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 2d5490c57aa2370bec464b9e4680bb0ac92e95b10416fd648b16e097021a1903). Current page as served on 2026-10-29, posted 27 February 2024; the page carries a later timestamp of 10 March 2024. The cross-family check retrieved it again on 2026-10-31; the bytes differ, and the check compared the quoted passages.
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-10-29
Language: English (en)
Attribution: Nora Belrose, Quintin Pope, “Counting arguments provide no evidence for AI doom”, 2024-02-27.
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, arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI (research/risk-debate). The quotation (20 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. 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. A passage of the document disputes the proposition or a premise it depends on. The record documents the text’s position, not who is right.

Date. Date of posting.

Record ID rd-r03-belrose-pope-2024-counting-arguments