Bayesian Reasoning in AI Safety Debates: Eneasz Brodski Rebutts Vaden Masrani's Misreading of Toby Ord
Askwho Casts AI podcast published an audio reading of Eneasz Brodski's essay rebutting Vaden Masrani's criticisms of Toby Ord's estimates and Bayesian rationalism. Brodski argues that Masrani misrepresented the findings of the 2016 survey of AI researchers and misunderstood Bayesian updating methods.
The Askwho Casts AI podcast released an audio reading of Eneasz Brodski's article "I Have Lost My Ability to be Charitable to Vaden" on October 31, 2026. Brodski, author of the "Death Is Bad" blog, wrote this response after interviewing Vaden Masrani for The Bayesian Conspiracy podcast, concluding that his opponent argued in bad faith.
The article specifically rebuts Masrani's characterization of Toby Ord's work in "The Precipice." Brodski points out that Masrani claimed Ord arbitrarily started with a 50/50 probability and adjusted it based on "vibes," whereas Ord actually cited a 2016 survey of over 300 machine-learning researchers. This survey found that researchers assigned an average 50% chance by 2061 of AI accomplishing every task better than humans. Brodski argues that dismissing this as "stupid bullshit surveys" misrepresents Bayesian updating, a formal method for adjusting beliefs in response to evidence.
Brodski also criticizes Masrani for portraying Bayesian Rationalism as detached from reality. He emphasizes that rationality involves entangling beliefs with reality through experiments, tests, and arguments, not making up numbers. The essay further addresses Masrani's dismissal of Will MacAskill and the broader AI Safety field, which Brodski describes as thousands of professionals working on theoretical and technical problems, contrary to Masrani's depiction of them as students writing scary blog posts.
For readers interested in the methodology of AI safety debates, this resource provides a detailed, attributed counter-argument to specific claims about risk estimation and epistemic norms.