@thebulletin.org
The best thinking on existential threats since 1945. Nuclear risk, climate change, and disruptive technologies. We set the #DoomsdayClock. thebulletin.org
@thebulletin.org"By stacking worst-case assumptions about pathogen transmissibility, blurring the distinction between dual-use research & weaponization, & overstating what AI changes about biological weapons development, Biological War presents a narrow picture of the problem."
buff.ly/Xv46X7S
@thebulletin.orgA new study finds that across 23 countries 75% of the public supports the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
But 45% of those respondents also support more countries getting nuclear weapons.
How to square the difference?
@thebulletin.org"Most decisions in life are made without complete information, but false precision is clouding rather than clarifying the tradeoffs. One can say that an outcome is plausible and consequential and therefore warrants safeguards without saying that the probability of apocalypse is greater than 10%."
@thebulletin.orgA 23-country study reveals that a majority of people worldwide embraces both nuclear deterrence and disarmament.
The studies authors argue that this exposes a pragmatic flexibility that gives policymakers rare leeway for creative diplomacy.
@thebulletin.orgRenouncing Washington's nuclear umbrella is Australia's only way forward, writes Bulletin nuclear risk fellow @jackkennedy.ie
Maintaining the current nuclear policy leaves Canberra trapped between its disarmament ambitions and an increasingly unpredictable US alliance.
@francoisdm.bsky.socialReposted by @thebulletin.orgIs Australia an advocate for nuclear disarmament or dependent on the US nuclear umbrella?
In a new piece for @thebulletin.org, Jack Kennedy @jackkennedy.ie examines Canberra's long-standing nuclear policy contradiction—and why it's time to choose. 🧵👇
@thebulletin.org"Jacobsen’s scenario is useful as a stress test of how, under extraordinary pressure, institutions might fail. But it is a poor map of biological risk."
@thebulletin.orgAI-generated speech has hollowed out the assumption underwriting public trust: that behind every word stands a person or group that can be held to it. The solution is not better machines alone but institutions that anchor every word to an accountable human being, writes Deb Roy.
@thebulletin.org"The job of policy[...] is to target the way that harm might take place, and to allocate effort or resources where it can be best used. False precision [...] makes it more difficult to make reasoned determinations about what deserves attention and what is just noise."
@thebulletin.orgThe recent death at a Siberian research lab is drawing attention to Jacobsen's bestseller "Biological War: A Scenario." But these authors argue that the catastrophe presented relies on worst possible outcomes, & cannot tell us which threats are most plausible or where scarce resources should go.
@thebulletin.orgMore than 26,000 respondents in 23 different countries were asked six key nuclear policy questions.
The answers may initially seem contradictory but the study's authors say they shows a public open to pragmatic and creative nuclear diplomacy.
@thebulletin.org"The uncertainty is not just about how likely a catastrophic event would be but also the mechanisms through which those outcomes would emerge," writes Sarah Kreps in her new piece on AI risk.
@thebulletin.org"The world has moved on. Nothing works. Everything costs too much. No one can help. No one knows how to fix anything."
Corey Doctorow @doctorow.pluralistic.net doesn't have any consumer advice — "shopping is not politics" — but he does have political guidance to share.
@thebulletin.orgA new study finds that 67% of US respondents support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons which calls for nuclear abolition. But only 22% of those respondents support reducing the US nuclear arsenal.
How to square the difference?
buff.ly/o7TVzJQ
@thebulletin.orgA 23-country study reveals that a majority of people worldwide embraces both nuclear deterrence and disarmament.
The studies authors argue that this exposes a pragmatic flexibility that gives policymakers rare leeway for creative diplomacy.
buff.ly/o7TVzJQ
@francoisdm.bsky.socialReposted by @thebulletin.orgAI doesn’t need rogue "superintelligence" or evil intent to start a nuclear war. In @thebulletin.org, Paul Slovic & Herbert Lin show how today’s AI—combined with ordinary human fallibility—could trigger catastrophe. 🧵
@thebulletin.orgThis Bulletin magazine article is available to all readers.
@thebulletin.orgCory Doctorow @doctorow.pluralistic.net writes on increasing enshittification, Steven King's The Dark Tower books, defining "conservative," virtual bureaucracy, and what we can all do about the reality that things, as a whole, are getting worse.
@thebulletin.orgFormer Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines and Chicago Public Media CEO Melissa Bell are joining the Bulletin for our annual gathering, Conversations Before Midnight, on November 12th in Chicago.
Learn more here: buff.ly/EEVouPN
@thebulletin.orgEven without runaway superintelligence or malicious intent, current AI systems risk triggering nuclear war by amplifying human cognitive blind spots, speeding up escalation spirals, and overwhelming decision-makers with a firehose of information during high-stakes crises.
