Then that seems bad, but also that AI is not counterfactual -- so adding safeguards to models is probably not the way to get the risk down.
I had looked into this for a previous research project. For what it's worth, I don't think there are any perfect sources, but my own BOTECs led me to believe the number people are usually after is $10B-$100B ~$30B-$300B:
I agree the eSentire >$3T number should be trusted very little. It doesn't have any public methodology and got critcised soon after the original estimates came out in 2015 as part of companies trying to 'one up' each other:
In early 2015 Inga Beale, CEO at the British insurer Lloyd’s, claimed that cybercrime was costing businesses globally up to $400 billion a year. Several months later Juniper Research released a report which said cybercrime will cost businesses over $2 trillion by 2019. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella stated $3 trillion of market value was destroyed in 2015 due to cybercrime….
The other 'trillion dollar' source that sometimes gets cited is McGuire (2018), who puts it at $1.5T. They do give a methodology of where this comes from, but...
Do you feel that's still an issue when you comapre to the human expert baseline?
The fact that both human experts and o1-preview scored twice as high on ProtocolQA than BioLP-bench doesn't feel that inconsistent to me. It seems your BioLP-bench questions are just "twice as hard". I'd find it more inconsistent if o1-preview matched human expert performance on one test but not the other.
(There are other open questions about whether the human experts in both studies are comparable and how much time people had)