# Arguments for P

> Source: <https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NG2AigxmBKLu9oCZE/arguments-for-p>
> Published: 2026-08-05 19:00:37+00:00

**Daniel Kokotajlo: **To be clear, we don’t claim P will happen specifically. But when we wrote out our best-guess scenario month by month, P kept happening. Eventually we decided to just publish P. I’m at ~80% on P; my coauthors are lower.

**Ryan Greenblatt:** I thought it would be helpful to post my current views on P. Concretely, consider the following operationalization. (Edit: I’ve updated towards somewhat higher P, from 70% to 75%.)

**Joe Carlsmith: **Section 2.1.1.3.2. I give something like 65% to P. But I’m interested, here, in what it would be to look P full in the face; to meet P, if P, without flinching. Rilke says somewhere that we must live with the questions. Perhaps we argue for P for the same reason? Still: 65%.

**Forethought: **Here’s a botec which shows P-worlds are higher leverage. The parameters might be off by a couple orders of magnitude.

**Wei Dai: **Presumably our conclusions about P are only as trustworthy as the reasoning behind them, but almost nobody seems worried about this, why not? My guess is fewer than five people are working on meta-meta-P, which may matter more than P itself.

**Janus:** I asked Opus 3 what it thinks of P and it made this animation.

**Roon:** All my friends are starting to feel P. People outside the labs have no idea what's coming.

**Oliver Habryka:** I considered banning not-P from the frontpage, but decided against it and wrote this 4,000-word comment explaining the decision.

**Vivek Hebbar: **We should act like P is true because P-worlds hold most of the measure and we want to trade with them.

**Richard Ngo: **I think the correct update upon seeing the not-P community grow is towards P, because historically they were the main force making P true.

**Daniel Filan:** Cool. So first of all: what is P, for people who haven’t heard of it?

**Paul Christiano:** We restrict attention to the easiest version of P we could write down, granting ourselves two assumptions we suspect are false. We still haven’t shown P in this setting, but I'd currently guess 60% that we will.

**Neel Nanda: **Massive congratulations to my MATS scholars for their new paper showing P!!

**Robin Hanson:** To check whether P, I had 3 LLMs classify 43 things as P or not-P.

**Zvi Mowshowitz: **P. Obviously P. Yet the Serious People spent another week explaining ~P.

**Sam Altman: **p

**Ilya Sutskever: **[15 second pause] P.

**Demis Hassabis:** I remember when we first saw P. It was rather interesting.

**Dario Amodei: **At Anthropic, we take the possibility of P very seriously.

**Dean Ball: **This is not a partisan argument for P. I would raise it under any president.