Claim · 2016-09-20 · publication · Stated in source · Supported

Etzioni's essay of 20 September 2016 argues that risk assessment is a data-driven exercise, reports a survey of AAAI Fellows in which most placed superintelligence beyond the foreseeable horizon, and states that predictions of superintelligence on that horizon are not supported by the available data.

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

No, the Experts Don't Think Superintelligent AI is a Threat to Humanity → articulates → Risk claims are speculative or unfalsifiable

Where it appears

Arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI →

Claim and evidence

No, the Experts Don't Think Superintelligent AI is a Threat to Humanityarticulates ↓Risk claims are speculative or unfalsifiable

Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editorStated in sourceSupported

Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source

Date: 2016-09-20 · publication Records dated 2016 →
Role: Articulation
Register (kind of text): Nonfiction

Scope and limitsThe essay's evidence concerns the timing of superintelligence; it also lists "the potential risk of superintelligence" among valid concerns. Its survey asked about timing, not about risk.

The evidence 02

primary sourceSupports the claim

No, the Experts Don't Think Superintelligent AI is a Threat to Humanity

MIT Technology Review (online) · 2016-09-20

Cite the original source

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

Source excerpt

“quantitative assessment of risks is the province of actuarial science.”

Location in source Paragraph 3

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-10-31

Source details and check notes

Authors: Oren Etzioni
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 cf01b13cce2584274b6434932336bf000d9861ca76016d78d45f5fffb4183c77). Current online article; the page also carries a later response by Etzioni to Dafoe and Russell, not quoted here.
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-10-29
Language: English (en)
Attribution: Oren Etzioni, “No, the Experts Don't Think Superintelligent AI is a Threat to Humanity”, 2016-09-20.
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 (10 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

No, the Experts Don't Think Superintelligent AI is a Threat to Humanity

MIT Technology Review (online) · 2016-09-20

Cite the original source

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

Source excerpt

“predictions that superintelligence is on the foreseeable horizon are not supported by the available data.”

Location in source Penultimate section

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-10-31

Source details and check notes

Authors: Oren Etzioni
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 cf01b13cce2584274b6434932336bf000d9861ca76016d78d45f5fffb4183c77). Current online article; the page also carries a later response by Etzioni to Dafoe and Russell, not quoted here.
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-10-29
Language: English (en)
Attribution: Oren Etzioni, “No, the Experts Don't Think Superintelligent AI is a Threat to Humanity”, 2016-09-20.
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 (15 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 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. Date of publication, as the source gives it.

Record ID rd-r11-etzioni-2016-experts-dont-think