# You will be OK

Seeing [this post](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/S5dnLsmRbj2JkLWvf/turning-20-in-the-probable-pre-apocalypse) and its comments made me a bit concerned for young people around this community. I thought I would try to write down why I believe most folks who read and write here (and are generally smart, caring, and knowledgable) will be OK.

I agree that our society often is under prepared for tail risks. As a general planner, you should be worrying about potential catastrophes even if their probability is small. However as an individual, if there is a certain probability X of doom that is beyond your control, it is best to focus on the 1-X fraction of the probability space that you control rather than constantly worrying about it. A generation of Americans and Russians grew up under a non-trivial probability of a total nuclear war, and they still went about their lives. Even when we do have some control over possibility of very bad outcomes (e.g., traffic accidents), it is best to follow some common sense best practices (wear a seatbelt, don't drive a motorcycle) but then put that out of your mind.

I do not want to engage here in the usual debate of P\[doom\]. But just as it makes absolute sense for companies and societies to worry about it as long as this probability is bounded away from 0, so it makes sense for individuals to spend most of their time not worrying about it as long as it is bounded away from 1. Even if it is your job (as it is mine to some extent) to push this probability down, it is best not to spend all of your time worrying about it, both for your mental health and for doing it well.

I want to recognize that, doom or not, AI will bring about [a lot of change very fast](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QQAWu7D6TceHwqhjm/thoughts-by-a-non-economist-on-ai-and-economics). It is quite possible that by some metrics, we will see centuries of progress compressed into decades. My own expectation is that, as we have seen so far, progress will be both continuous and jagged. Both AI capabilities and its diffusion will continue to grow, but at different rates in different domains. (E.g., I would not be surprised if we cured cancer before we significantly cut the red tape needed to build in San Francisco.) I believe that because of this continuous progress,  neither AGI nor ASI will be discrete points in time. Rather, just like we call recessions after we are already in them,  we will probably decide on the "AGI moment" retrospectively six months or a year after it had already happened. I also believe that, because of this "jaggedness", humans, and especially smart and caring ones, would be needed for at least several decades if not more. It is a marathon, not a sprint.

People have many justifiable fears about AI beyond literal doom. I cannot fully imagine the way AI will change the world economically, socially, politically, and physically. However, I expect that, like the industrial revolution, even after this change, there will be no consensus if it was good or bad. Us human beings have an impressive dynamic range. We can live in the worst conditions, and complain about the best conditions. It is possible we will cure diseases and poverty and yet people will still long for the good old days of the 2020's where young people had the thrill of fending for themselves, before guaranteed income and housing ruined it.

I do not want to underplay the risks. It is also possible that the future *will* be much worse, even by my cynical eyes. Perhaps the main reason I work on technical alignment is that it is both important and I am optimistic that it can be (to a large extent) solved. But we have not solved alignment yet, and while I am sure about its importance, I could be wrong in my optimism. Also [as I wrote before](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/faAX5Buxc7cdjkXQG/machines-of-faithful-obedience),  there are multiple bad scenarios that can happen even if we do "solve alignment." 

This note is not to encourage complacency. There is a reason that "may you live in interesting times" is (apocryphally) known as a curse. We are going into uncharted waters, and the decades ahead could well be some of the most important in human history. It is actually a great time to be young, smart, motivated and well intentioned. 

You may disagree with my predictions. In fact, you *should* disagree with my predictions, I myself am deeply unsure of them. Also, the heuristic of not trusting the words of a middle aged professor has never been more relevant. You can and should hold both governments and companies (including my own) to the task of preparing for the worst. But I hope you spend your time and mental energy on thinking positive and preparing for the weird.  
  
**Addendum regarding the title (Jan 1, 2026):**  
  
By the title "you will be OK", I obviously do not mean that every reader will be OK. I also do not mean that there is 100% guarantee that AI's impact on humanity would not be catastrophically bad. I would not trust anyone who guarantees they know how AI will turn out. I also am very clearly stating my personal beliefs - as I say in the article you may well disagree with my predictions, and it is your choice how much value to place on them.  
  
What I mean by "you will be OK" is:  
  
1\. **A prediction**: I believe the most likely outcome is that AI will lead to a vast improvement in the quality of lives for the vast majority of people, similar in scale to the [improvement in our lives compared to pre industrial times](https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/medieval-kings-would-envy-you). Moreover, I believe that, assuming they take care of their physical and mental health, and do not panic, many, probably most, young LessWrong people are well positioned to do very well, and both take advantage of AI as well as help shape it. But this is only one outcome of many.  
  
2. **A working hypothesis:** I propose that even though there are multiple possible outcomes, including ones where you, I, and everyone, will very much not be OK, people should live their day to day under the hypothesis they will be OK. Not just because I think that is the most likely outcome, but also because, as I said, it is best not to dwell on the parts of the probability space that are outside your control. This was true for most people during the cold war regarding the possibility of a total nuclear war, and is true now.  
  
**I do not mean that you should be complacent!**  And as I said, this does not mean you should let governments, and companies, including my own, off the hook! There is a similar dynamic in climate change, where people get the sense that if they are not "maximally doomerish" about climate change and claim that it will destroy the world then they are being complacent and doing nothing. This is wrong, and seeing climate change as fatal is not just bad for one's mental health, and can have negative impact on your [life decisions](https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/please-dont-give-up-on-having-kids), but also can lead to [wrong tradeoffs](https://www.gatesnotes.com/home/home-page-topic/reader/three-tough-truths-about-climate).  
  
I really like Kelsey Piper's quote from the substack I linked above:

> I do not say any of this as a substitute for meaningful action on the real grinding and horrific poverty that still exists in our world. I like Max Roser’s mantra for these things: “[The world is awful. The world is much better. The world can be much better](https://ourworldindata.org/much-better-awful-can-be-better).”

Arguably a more accurate title would have been "**I believe that you will most likely will be OK, and in any case should spend most of your time acting under this assumption."** But I will leave the shorter and less complete title as it is.