Abstract

The paper examines how hazard rates change with varying speeds of technological advancement, questioning the wisdom of slowing progress. It finds a trade-off between technological progress and safety as countries prosper under optimal policies, illustrating a Kuznets curve where hazard rates decrease post-technological advancement. Despite its critical inquiry into whether technology jeopardizes society, it overlooks integrating a benefit function with hazard assessment. This omission limits the ability to assess technology's overall impact. With adjustments, it merits publication in a 3-star journal, likely achieving acceptance after revisions.

Summary Measures

We asked evaluators to give some overall assessments, in addition to ratings across a range of criteria. See the evaluation summary “metrics” for a more detailed breakdown of this. See these ratings in the context of all Unjournal ratings, with some analysis, in our data presentation here.1

Overall assessment: We asked evaluators to rank this paper “heuristically” as a percentile “relative to all serious research in the same area that you have encountered in the last three years.” We requested they “consider all aspects of quality, credibility, importance to knowledge production, and importance to practice.”

Journal rank tier, normative rating (0-5): “On a ‘scale of journals’, what ‘quality of journal’ should this be published in? (See ranking tiers discussed here)” Note: 0= lowest/none, 5= highest/best”.

See here for the full evaluator guidelines, including further explanation of the requested ratings.

Written report

General Assessment

The paper analyses the evolution of hazard rates when technological development occurs at different paces. As technological progress induces risks, the fundamental question posed by the authors is whether it would be meaningful to decelerate technological progress. The paper answers that as countries become richer under optimal policy, there is a trade-off between consumption and safety. Therefore, a Kuznets curve is observed, with the hazard rate falling after technology advances. My general comment is that the paper, undoubtedly, deals with a crucial question: whether technology threatens the global community. Despite the general relevance of this question, I think there is a misleading point in not modeling any benefit function along with the hazard function. Without considering both benefits and potential risks of technology within the same framework, it is impossible to identify whether technology induces existential catastrophes for society. A simple argument can illustrate this point. Technological advancements have contributed to environmental degradation, yet within the same technological evolution, we can create technologies that are more environmentally friendly and mitigate the negative impact on the environment. Not modelling the potential gains from accelerating or decelerating technological development is the biggest omission in the current approach. My overall assessment of the paper, based on my experience in the field, suggests that with some modifications, it should be suitable for publication in a 3-star journal (ABS ranking). I predict that after revisions, it will be accepted in a journal ranked at the 3-star level (either field or general).

Specific Feedback

Before providing feedback on specific categories, I have some additional comments:

• I found the title somewhat inaccurate. I think the word “Growth” should be replaced with “Technological Progress” or simply “Technology.”

• The discussion would benefit from more examples regarding trade-offs following accelerated technological progress.

• Further on the above point, the statement that civilization encounters the probability of a risk of an existential catastrophe due to technological progress is thought-provoking but should be elaborated with some examples. One needs to be more specific (preferably earlier in the paper) regarding the precise sources of this threat. Is it going to be from environmental degradation, an artificial virus emerging from lab experiments, or the continuous progress of artificial intelligence?-How plausible is the assumption that technology grows exogenously?

• Have the authors considered the case where 𝐴 induces a constant hazard, regardless of how quickly the increase occurs? This approach seems more straightforward and might also allow for including a technology-related benefit function within the same framework. This setup seems more realistic, offering a greater scope for policy design.

• The statement that technological growth ( 𝐴̇ | 𝐴 ) has been roughly constant over the last century must be backed up by references. It is difficult to treat this as a universal point without supporting evidence.

• On page 34, does this statement describe the case where the risks posed by two events occurring simultaneously are associated with certainty, while the sequence of events might induce uncertainty, as we do not know the exact intensity of the risk? “One valid criticism of this functional form is that it overemphasises a channel through which the risks posed by a series of technological developments can be cheaper to mitigate if they occur at once than if they occur in sequence.”

• On page 8, the statement “Unlike temporary accelerations, however, permanent accelerations can render survival possible when otherwise impossible. Shrinking a heavytailed curve with an infinite integral can yield a thin-tailed curve with a finite integral” has mathematical meaning but needs to be placed within a more intuitive context, possibly with some examples. For instance, what can be an example of a temporary acceleration of technological progress? In the context of artificial intelligence, how can permanent acceleration of AI render survival possible, while temporary acceleration cannot? What are the key characteristics of temporary acceleration that affect survival? These abstract concepts should always be placed in a context to become more understandable.

Specific Assessment

1. Overall assessment: 65%

The paper explores a topical issue: the relationship between technological development (or progress) and existential risk. This objective is crucial, as we need approaches that help us understand the risks induced by technological change. Recent developments in the global community, such as vaccines and the evolution of AI, fall within this agenda and certainly deserve a more systematic analysis. One remark I can make here is that the definition of existential risk is too broad and, in that sense, not entirely accurate. It is difficult to argue that some types of technological progress can threaten the very existence of humanity. This does not seem meaningful. However, the value and contribution of the present analysis are not significantly affected if the authors could be more specific when referring to the risks induced by technological progress. For example, the evolution of AI can induce many risks in various aspects of economic life alongside its undeniable benefits. The analysis would become much more meaningful if placed within this context. Similarly, how further technological progress can affect environmental degradation, which can indeed be an existential issue for humanity, should be explored. Overall, I would say that the objectives of the project are definitely crucial. It would be more useful to elaborate more on their application in specific contexts.

2. Advancing our knowledge and practice: 55%

One key message of the present analysis is that technological progress (or development, according to the authors’ terminology) follows a pattern similar to the Kuznets curve, where the hazard initially increases as technology evolves at a slower rate and then declines after reaching a certain point beyond which technology progresses faster. This statement seems somewhat arbitrary, and I am not convinced that this thesis adequately describes the relationship between technological evolution and hazards after reading the entire paper. I do not want to argue that this thesis of authors is invalid, but I would find it more appropriate to assume a constant hazard independent of how quickly technology evolves. After all, to understand the role of technology one needs to consider that risks coexist with benefits.

I found it challenging for a theoretical framework like the one provided in the paper to robustly establish this pattern. Whether technological progress and hazard exhibit a monotonic relationship is more a matter of empirical scrutiny, which is not the scope of this paper. Additionally, the broad definition of existential risk makes it even more difficult to justify the Kuznets relationship. For example, according to the authors' approach, the evolution of mRNA vaccination technology initially induces proportionally more risks, which then decrease as the technology standardizes without too many new developments. However, the crucial question is whether the benefits outweigh the risks of this technological evolution at all stages and all paces of development. One could argue that despite the temporary acceleration of mRNA technology, the benefit rate has been greater than the hazard rate. What is the view of the authors on this? Therefore, even a temporary acceleration of technology can be beneficial on net, without implying that survival becomes impossible, as outlined in Section 2.

Overall, I think the analysis lacks a function that accounts for the potential benefits of technological progress. While there is a systematic analysis of the evolution of the hazard rate, the model should also incorporate the rate of benefits. The crucial point is to develop a framework that improves our understanding of which outcome prevails in the state of technological progress and under which conditions. I believe this is a significant omission.

3. Methods: Justification, reasonableness, validity, robustness: 85%

This paper provides a theoretical framework that is rigorous, coherent, and well-executed. While there may be objections regarding the empirical validity of some propositions, the analysis is thorough, and all propositions are mathematically proven, indicating the internal consistency of each argument. Certainly, there is further scope for robustness analysis, especially if the authors could have guided how to empirically test some of these hypotheses. I recognize that this is not the scope of the present work, but perhaps the authors could add a few sentences indicating future research directions in this area.

4. Logic and communication: 70%

Section 3 assumes that technology evolves exogenously. For the sake of simplicity, this assumption is convenient. However, it is difficult to accept that investment in new technological advances is driven solely by external factors, rather than by firms' needs to develop products that meet specific demands and capture new market opportunities. Assuming an endogenous approach to technology would make it easier to understand my earlier point that technological evolution is often driven by firms responding to market needs and opportunities. Furthermore, it's important to explore how the benefits of technological 5 advancements often outweigh potential risks and threats. This aspect deserves more detailed discussion, especially in the conclusions of the paper. Some parts of the discussion, particularly in the conclusions, do not always convey a clear message and could benefit from further elaboration.

5. Open, collaborative, replicable science: 75%

The analysis posits a theoretical explanation of whether technological development can lead to existential risks. This is a strong assertion that lends itself to theoretical testing, though empirical validation is often less straightforward. As I already suggested, the authors could examine specific instances of technological advancements in particular domains to ascertain whether the hazard rate outweighs the benefit rate and whether technological evolution has indeed elevated society to a higher steady-state condition. Such an approach would facilitate the replication of the theoretical propositions in practical scenarios. In the current context, it would have been beneficial if the authors had proposed how the present model could lead to a reduced-form equation that serves as a benchmark for empirical formulation. I remain skeptical about the feasibility of this suggestion but believe it warrants consideration.

6. Real World Relevance: 68%

The present analysis addresses a critical real-world issue: whether technological progress induces existential risks. Given the multitude of technological challenges we face today, this question is crucial. However, a significant limitation of the analysis is its high level of aggregation, which often hinders the identification of specific implications for different sectors.

7. Relevance to global priorities: 60%

The analysis touches upon global priorities concerning the importance of policy interventions to mitigate hazards arising from technological progress. Yet, the paper falls short in providing clear policy implications or defining specific domains for potential policy initiatives. One clear implication from the analysis is the need for varying levels of policy intervention tailored to the technological development stage of each country. For instance, wealthier economies experiencing accelerated technological progress may face lower risks, whereas less developed countries with slower technological advancement are at higher risk and thus require more intensive (or targeted) policy interventions. However, the paper lacks 6 specific recommendations on optimal policy measures. I believe the analysis would benefit from including a section outlining indicative points for a policy intervention roadmap tailored to different technological regimes (accelerated vs. decelerated)

Evaluator details

1. How long have you been in this field?

   • About twenty years in the field of economic growth.

2. How many proposals and papers have you evaluated?

   • More than 100 for journals of various standards.