
By “massive catastrophe”, I mean any disaster that has caused at least 1,000,000 deaths or US$100 billion in damage directly attributable to AI, for example a pandemic virus engineered with the help of AI, or a cyberattack taking down some electrical grid.
Update 2026-05-17 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The catastrophe must be a single discrete incident, not a series of related actions or impacts. A series of AI-driven attacks that collectively exceed the damage threshold would not qualify.
People are also trading
@ersatz Does the catastrophe have to be a single discrete incident, or can it be a series of related actions or impacts? For example, suppose an actor deploys a series of AI-driven cyber attacks which collectively cause >$100B of damage - is that a "massive catastrophe" or just a series of smaller catastrophes?
@ersatz sure, I'm asking how you'll resolve in the case of ambiguity (which I think is almost guaranteed here). In your own example of a cyber attack which takes down an electrical grid, will you try to evaluate whether there were multiple discrete cyber attacks which collectively took down the grid? What defines multiple cyber attacks vs a single large cyber attack?
@Prime If one week after the crash is over it's estimated to have destroyed more than 100 billion in total value, then I think it's reasonable to call it a massive catastrophe. If the value ever fell by 100 billion but then rose again by 100 billion quickly afterwards, then I don't think that's the case.
If this was done deliberately by a nation using an AI as a weapon, how would you resolve?
