Technical supplement 02
Methods and assumptions.
Prof. Hugh Manloop, Dr. Janet Pending
Institute for Applied Inevitability
We aim to be specific enough to be useful, while remaining sufficiently distant in time to avoid an immediate correction. The following procedures were applied consistently, except where consistency would have affected the results.
Structured expert elicitation
Four researchers were asked for their independent estimates. After discussion, they independently agreed with the most senior researcher. We report the resulting consensus.
Trend extrapolation
We extended the lines until they reached the right edge of the chart. Where a line did not support our conclusion, we extended the chart.
Scenario validation
The scenario was tested against a panel of simulated futures. Futures that contradicted the scenario were excluded as out of distribution.
Uncertainty quantification
Our confidence intervals reflect uncertainty in the model. Uncertainty about the model is addressed in a separate appendix, which is outside the confidence interval.
Pre-registration
The main prediction was registered in a document before the document was published. This rules out the possibility that the main prediction was added after publication. Other possibilities remain.
Peer review
The manuscript was circulated to the authors, who provided valuable feedback on their own sections. One reviewer suggested a different conclusion. We thank them for their time.
Conflicts of interest
The Institute's continued existence depends on the future remaining sufficiently uncertain to require further work. The authors do not consider this to have influenced their finding that more work is required.
Data availability
The scenario indicators are published directly alongside the narrative. The interactive compute forecast exposes its formula and assumptions. Narrative assumptions are distinguished from model assumptions in the accompanying notes.
All research supplements ↗