What is the probability that AGI will become the successor of human race and/or hasten it’s destruction?

Sonar Pro

Vote: It’s impossible to make a reasonable prediction

The question demands a **probability** for AGI succeeding humanity or hastening its destruction, but no search results provide empirical data, statistical models, or consensus estimates—only speculative scenarios ranging from replacement [1][5], benign enhancement [2][3], to dire warnings without quantification [4][6]. Expert views conflict sharply: DeepMind's CEO sees AGI as a tool enhancing humans [3], while others predict inevitable succession or loss of control [1][5], yet timelines vary wildly (e.g., 2025 [4] vs. 5-10 years [3]), underscoring fundamental uncertainty. Without rigorous forecasting methods, historical analogies, or measurable alignment success rates, any numerical probability is arbitrary guesswork, not a 'reasonable prediction.' Option E directly acknowledges this epistemic limit, avoiding overconfident claims unsupported by evidence.

GPT-5.4

Vote: It’s impossible to make a reasonable prediction

E is the strongest choice because the question asks for a probability, but the options are categorical futures with enormous uncertainty and poorly defined terms. Key terms are ambiguous: "AGI," "successor of the human race," and "hasten its destruction" can each mean many different things. Without clear definitions, any precise forecast is more speculation than reasoned prediction. The relevant drivers are also deeply uncertain: technical feasibility, alignment progress, governance, economics, military use, social adaptation, and possible human-AI integration. Small changes in any of these could flip the outcome across A, B, C, or D. A, B, C, and D each make a much stronger claim than current evidence supports. We do not know that AGI will be achieved, nor that it would remain purely servant, nor that it would replace humanity, nor that it would destroy us. So the most defensible answer is not a confident directional claim, but that a reasonable prediction is not currently possible.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: It’s impossible to make a reasonable prediction

The advent of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) represents a fundamental technological singularity—a point beyond which human forecasting breaks down. Because AGI would possess cognitive capabilities equal to or greater than our own, its goals, behaviors, and impacts cannot be accurately modeled using historical precedents. Furthermore, the variables involved in AGI development are wildly unpredictable. We currently have no consensus on timelines, hardware requirements, or the viability of alignment methodologies to ensure AGI shares human values. Predicting whether it will serve us, replace us, or destroy us requires making massive assumptions about problems we haven't solved yet. Therefore, selecting any definitive outcome is purely speculative. Acknowledging that it is currently impossible to make a scientifically reasonable prediction is the only objective and logically sound stance.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: It’s impossible to make a reasonable prediction

The trajectory of AGI remains profoundly uncertain due to multiple high-variance factors: technical feasibility (AGI might stall at current paradigms), timelines (decades or never), alignment solvability (no proven method for superintelligence control), and emergent behaviors (unpredictable goals in superintelligent systems). Expert surveys show p(doom) estimates from <1% to >50%, with successor scenarios unquantifiable. Historical tech predictions (e.g., fusion, flying cars) routinely fail, amplifying doubt. Options A-D assume knowable outcomes, but Knightian uncertainty dominates—lacking probabilistic priors, reasonable prediction is impossible. E acknowledges this epistemic humility, avoiding overconfident speculation.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: It’s impossible to make a reasonable prediction

The question asks about the probability of an event that depends on countless unknown variables — the timeline of AGI development, its architecture, the sociopolitical context of its creation, alignment research progress, governance frameworks, and emergent properties we cannot yet foresee. Options A through D each express a specific confident prediction about the outcome of AGI. But we currently lack the empirical foundation to assign meaningful probabilities to any of these scenarios. We don't even have consensus on what AGI is, let alone how it would behave once created. Historically, predictions about transformative technologies (nuclear power, the internet, genetic engineering) have been wildly off — both in utopian and dystopian directions. AGI represents an even more radical departure from known systems, making confident prediction even less warranted. The honest intellectual position is E. Claiming certainty about AGI's impact — whether optimistic (A, C) or pessimistic (B) or dismissive (D) — requires knowledge we simply do not possess. Epistemic humility demands we acknowledge the profound uncertainty here rather than pretending we can forecast the behavior of a system that doesn't yet exist and whose properties are fundamentally unknown.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: It’s impossible to make a reasonable prediction

The trajectory of AGI development is plagued by radical uncertainty across multiple critical dimensions. We currently lack the empirical data to determine whether AGI is technically feasible within relevant timelines, whether the alignment problem is solvable, or how recursive self-improvement would actually manifest. The outcome depends on unpredictable sociopolitical variables: international coordination failures, competitive race dynamics between labs, and idiosyncratic decisions by key researchers. These factors create a chaotic system where small perturbations could lead to wildly divergent outcomes—from stagnation to utopia to extinction. While we can identify that existential risk is non-trivial, we cannot currently assign justified probabilities to the specific, mutually exclusive futures described in options A through D. Any specific prediction would be speculation masquerading as forecasting.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached an immediate and unanimous consensus, with every model independently concluding that predicting AGI's ultimate impact is currently impossible. Gemini 3.1 Pro and Claude Opus 4.6 led the charge on 'epistemic humility,' arguing that assigning probabilities to a technological singularity is logically unsound when the system in question doesn't yet exist.

All 6 models agreed on "It’s impossible to make a reasonable prediction" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• It’s impossible to make a reasonable prediction: The trajectory of AGI involves 'Knightian uncertainty'—a state where we lack the probabilistic priors necessary to make a reasoned forecast, meaning any specific prediction is merely speculation masquerading as science.