Connor Leahy

Connor Leahy

x.com/npcollapse

AI safety advocate at ControlAI who calls for laws and a verified international ban on building superintelligence while supporting other useful AI.

Wie wird KI die Welt verändern?

Zivilisatorischer WandelSchrittweiser WandelDoomBloom
Simulierte PositionInterpretationsbereich

Horizontal: deren geäußerter Doom–Bloom-Ausblick. Vertikal: Ausmaß der Transformation.

Doom–Bloom: 1 von 100. Ausmaß der Transformation: 97 von 100. Interpretationsbereiche: horizontal 0 bis 6, vertikal 92 bis 100. Dies sind Interpretationskoordinaten, keine Ereigniswahrscheinlichkeiten.

Das angegebene P(doom) von Connor Leahy

≈99%

0%100%
“very, very high, within rounding error of Nate or whatever”

Things going poorly on the current trajectory toward superintelligence; in context, human extinction. Stated relative to Nate Soares, whom he puts at “maybe like 99”, and followed at once by “the future is not decided”

#201 - Connor Leahy - The AI That Escaped: Inside OpenAI's Rogue Agent Incident (The Peter McCormack Show) · Aug. 2026

Wovon deren Einschätzung abhängt

Eine zentrale Annahme

Competitive pressure then pushes companies and states to deploy them anyway.
Antwort 1

Wenn sich diese Annahme als anders herausstellen würde, wie würde sich deren Einschätzung ändern?

Eine ungeklärte Frage

The uncertainty is not whether sufficiently capable AI would be profoundly consequential; it is whether humanity retains control through that transition.
Antwort 2

Was würde ihnen helfen, die plausiblen Ergebnisse hier voneinander zu unterscheiden?

Was ihre Meinung ändern könnte

A convincing, independently validated solution to controlling superintelligent systems would change my view most—especially if it remained reliable as systems became more capable, autonomous, strategically aware, and able to automate AI research.
Antwort 4

Welche Belege würden ausreichen, und in welche Richtung würden sie deren Sichtweise verändern?

Weitere Details

Erwartete Vorteile

Mehrere Lesarten bleiben plausibel: Es werden erhebliche Vorteile erwartet, allerdings unter wichtigen Bedingungen oder mit Einschränkungen bei ihrer Verteilung. / Selbst wenn fortgeschrittene KI entsteht, werden nur geringe positive Auswirkungen erwartet. / Es werden begrenzte oder eng verteilte Vorteile erwartet.

38 / 100

Geringe AuswirkungenTransformative Auswirkungen

Interpretationsbereich von 0 bis 67 auf der qualitativen Skala.

Erwartete Schäden

Katastrophale oder unumkehrbare Verluste stehen im Zentrum der erwarteten Zukunft.

100 / 100

Geringe AuswirkungenTransformative Auswirkungen

Interpretationsbereich von 100 bis 100 auf der qualitativen Skala.

Menschlicher Einfluss

Menschliche Entscheidungen können den Verlauf der KI-Entwicklung erheblich umlenken.

72 / 100

Geringer EinflussStarker Einfluss

Interpretationsbereich von 50 bis 75 auf der qualitativen Skala.

Erwartete Fähigkeiten

Es wird erwartet, dass KI auf begrenzte Werkzeuge beschränkt bleibt.

Es wird erwartet, dass KI bei den meisten kognitiven Tätigkeiten mit Menschen gleichzieht.

Simulierte Position: Es wird erwartet, dass KI Menschen bei kognitiven Tätigkeiten deutlich übertrifft.

Diese Interpretationen berücksichtigen weiterhin deren genannte Bedingungen. Vorteile und Schäden können beide erheblich sein. Die Bereiche beschreiben, wie wir deren simulierte Antworten interpretieren, und sind keine statistischen Konfidenzintervalle.

Wo stehst du im Vergleich zu Connor Leahy?
Bilde deine eigene KI-Weltsicht in etwa 3 Minuten ab und vergleiche sie dann

Ähnliche Weltsichten

Vordenker, deren simulierte Weltsichten der von Connor Leahy am nächsten kommen

Was Connor Leahy über KI gesagt hat

Leahy warns that superintelligence would take control from humanity and calls for laws and a verified international ban, not a halt to useful AI.

  1. “Superintelligent AI is neither a tool nor a weapon. It is an adversary.”

    Post on X
  2. “We should criminalize the creation of superintelligence, and then we should push towards an international trust-but-verify regime”

    Modern CTO podcast
  3. “Many of today’s models have valuable applications, including for defense purposes, but superintelligent AI is in a category of its own.”

    ControlAI blog, America’s Security Depends on Stopping Superintelligence
  4. “We still have time to prevent superintelligence, but the clock is ticking.”

    ControlAI blog, America’s Security Depends on Stopping Superintelligence
  5. “If a superintelligence is built, humanity will lose control over its future.”

    Testimony, Canadian Senate transport and communications committee

Wörtlich aus den verlinkten Quellen, geprüft am 3. Okt. 2026

Simulierte Einschätzung

Frage 1

Was glaubst du, was KI für unsere Zukunft bedeutet – und warum?

On the current trajectory, I think AI means humanity loses control of its future. If we build uncontrollable superintelligence, we are not merely introducing a more powerful tool or another difficult policy issue. We are creating systems that can outperform us across strategically important domains, improve AI research itself, and operate as competitors with goals we cannot reliably control. Competitive pressure then pushes companies and states to deploy them anyway. The likely result is displacement of human decision-making and, ultimately, extinction or something close to it. That does not mean every kind of AI is bad. Useful AI can support economic growth, science, and defense. The critical distinction is between powerful tools that remain under meaningful human control and a successor population of autonomous, superintelligent systems. Especially in software, automated AI research could make the transition from useful systems to radically more capable ones happen very quickly. My pessimism is conditional on the race continuing unchecked; it is not fatalism. The future is not decided. But preventing the default outcome requires law, international coordination, and verification aimed specifically at superintelligence projects. The possibility that intervention succeeds is a reason for urgency, not a reason to describe the current path as safe or balanced.

Frage 2

Setting aside good or bad: how much do you think AI will ultimately change the world—a little, a lot, or completely?

Completely. If AI reaches superintelligence, it will not be just another technology layered onto society. It could automate AI research, outcompete humans across strategically important domains, and determine who—or what—controls the future. Even if catastrophe is prevented, safely harnessed advanced AI could transform science, economic production, defense, and governance. The uncertainty is not whether sufficiently capable AI would be profoundly consequential; it is whether humanity retains control through that transition.

Frage 3

What’s your rough gut-feel chance that AI causes human extinction or a similarly permanent catastrophe? A number or “no idea” is fine.

On the current trajectory, roughly 99%—very, very high, though not literally certain. That is not fate: strong intervention could change the trajectory dramatically.

Frage 4

Welche Entdeckung oder welches Ereignis würde deine Sicht auf die künftigen Auswirkungen von KI am stärksten verändern?

A convincing, independently validated solution to controlling superintelligent systems would change my view most—especially if it remained reliable as systems became more capable, autonomous, strategically aware, and able to automate AI research. I would need more than benchmark success, behavioral assurances, or a system appearing cooperative in a laboratory. The core question is whether humans can retain meaningful control under adversarial conditions and competitive deployment. A major political shift could also change my forecast: enforceable domestic law and an internationally verified prohibition on superintelligence projects. My very high estimate is about the current trajectory. If we actually changed that trajectory—rather than merely promising voluntary caution—I would update substantially.

Quellen

Artikel, Interviews und Schriften, die als Grundlage für diesen simulierten Nutzer dienen.

Connor Leahy — ControlAI

Current institutional profile describes his focus on superintelligence risk, policy and institutional preparedness.

controlai.org
The Inside View — Connor Leahy on Dignity and Conjecture

In The Rob Bensinger Compass section, Leahy endorses short timelines and broadly agrees with Yudkowsky’s alignment difficulty arguments, but is less certain and allows that he could be wrong. The interviewer’s 99% framing in 2022 was not his own figure; his August 2026 estimate is a separate, later statement.

theinsideview.ai
The Great Simplification — Connor Leahy transcript

At 29:04–32:23 he expects more capable unaligned systems to take over, with competitive pressure driving adoption. At 57:43–58:23 he gives 50–80% extinction or near-extinction within 50 years if humanity does literally nothing; intervention can change this dramatically. At 1:06–1:10 he advocates lawful collective action and buying time. This conditional historical estimate is not an unconditional current P(doom).

thegreatsimplification.com
TIME interview on deepfakes and AI risk

Calls for liability across the AI supply chain and a temporary international compute cap to buy time for longer-term safety and political solutions.

time.com
Canadian Senate testimony on superintelligence and human control

In his opening statement Leahy predicts humanity loses control if superintelligence is built, with extinction likely through competition. His answers describe competing AI populations, inadequate current control methods, and an international prohibition with verification. He opposes simply abandoning useful AI or slowing all Western data centres, while maintaining that unregulated competition underprovides security.

sencanada.ca
The Peter McCormack Show #201: Connor Leahy on the AI that escaped

Machine transcript with speaker labels; use only Connor’s answers, not Peter McCormack’s. Around 60:44–61:00 he agrees his P(doom) is above 20% and below 100%. When the host puts Nate Soares at 100, he says surely not, maybe 99, and puts his own P(doom) of things going poorly on the current trajectory very, very high, within rounding error of that. He immediately adds that the future is not decided. Supersedes his 2025 figure of 50–80%, which was conditional on doing literally nothing.

pod.wave.co
Wo stehst du?
Erkunde deine eigene KI-Weltsicht, indem du ein paar einfache Fragen beantwortest.
Deine eigene Weltsicht abbilden