Claim · 2016-11-02 · publication · Stated in source · Supported

Dafoe and Russell's essay of 2 November 2016, answering Etzioni, argues that pointing to long-term AI risks does not assert that they are imminent, and that catastrophic risks should not be ignored because most experts place them more than 25 years away.

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

Yes, We Are Worried About the Existential Risk of Artificial Intelligence → contests → Risk claims are speculative or unfalsifiable

Where it appears

Arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI →

Claim and evidence

Yes, We Are Worried About the Existential Risk of Artificial Intelligencecontests ↓Risk claims are speculative or unfalsifiable

Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editorStated in sourceSupported

Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source

Date: 2016-11-02 · publication Records dated 2016 →
Role: Contesting
Register (kind of text): Nonfiction
Engagement: Engages a premise. Disputes the premise that evidence of distant timing shows the risk claims should not guide attention.

Scope and limitsThe essay disputes the inference from a timing survey to the absence of risk; it does not argue that the risk is large or near.

The evidence 02

primary sourceSupports the claim

Yes, We Are Worried About the Existential Risk of Artificial Intelligence

MIT Technology Review (online) · 2016-11-02

Cite the original source

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

Source excerpt

“Should we ignore catastrophic risks simply because most experts think they are more than 25 years away?”

Location in source Paragraph 8

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-10-31

Source details and check notes

Authors: Allan Dafoe; Stuart Russell
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 1fe01ed83e2ee3b4c74e8d322d779ca3c1fadbebc8b6a74843bc1b12d833ccf3). Current online article, followed on the page by a response from Etzioni (not quoted). 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: Allan Dafoe, Stuart Russell, “Yes, We Are Worried About the Existential Risk of Artificial Intelligence”, 2016-11-02.
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 (17 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

Yes, We Are Worried About the Existential Risk of Artificial Intelligence

MIT Technology Review (online) · 2016-11-02

Cite the original source

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

Source excerpt

“pointing to long-term risks from AI is not equivalent to claiming that superintelligent AI and its accompanying risks are “imminent.”

Location in source Paragraph 9

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-10-31

Source details and check notes

Authors: Allan Dafoe; Stuart Russell
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 1fe01ed83e2ee3b4c74e8d322d779ca3c1fadbebc8b6a74843bc1b12d833ccf3). Current online article, followed on the page by a response from Etzioni (not quoted). 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: Allan Dafoe, Stuart Russell, “Yes, We Are Worried About the Existential Risk of Artificial Intelligence”, 2016-11-02.
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 publication, as the source gives it.

Record ID rd-r11-dafoe-russell-2016-yes-we-are-worried