Pregunta 1
Joe Carlsmith
x.com/jkcarlsmithPhilosopher at Anthropic who writes about AI’s potential for a far better future and the alignment work and restraint needed to reach it safely.
¿Cómo cambiará la IA el mundo?
Horizontal: su perspectiva Doom–Bloom expresada. Vertical: escala de la transformación.
Doom–Bloom: 27 de 100. Escala de la transformación: 94 de 100. Rangos de interpretación: de 22 a 50 en horizontal y de 89 a 100 en vertical. Son coordenadas de interpretación, no probabilidades de eventos.
≥10%
“a significant (read: double-digit) probability of destroying the entire future of the human species”
The technology being built by companies like Anthropic destroying the entire future of the human species (existential catastrophe)
Un supuesto central
It is that highly capable agents may have motivations imperfectly aligned with ours, options that let them evade control, and incentives to seek influence or prevent correction.Respuesta 1
Si este supuesto resultara distinto, ¿cómo cambiaría su perspectiva?
Qué podría hacer cambiar de opinión
The biggest positive update would be a technically and institutionally credible safety case for superintelligence: evidence that we can understand and shape a system’s motivations, detect strategic deception, keep its options bounded, preserve meaningful corrigibility as capabilities scale, and verify these claims under adversarial pressure.Respuesta 4
¿Qué evidencia bastaría y en qué dirección movería su visión?
Más detalles
Se esperan beneficios sustanciales, con condiciones importantes o límites en su distribución.
56 / 100
Rango de interpretación de 33 a 67 en la escala cualitativa.
Las pérdidas catastróficas o irreversibles ocupan un lugar central en el futuro esperado.
89 / 100
Rango de interpretación de 67 a 100 en la escala cualitativa.
Las decisiones humanas tienen una influencia significativa, aunque muy condicionada.
61 / 100
Rango de interpretación de 50 a 75 en la escala cualitativa.
Detener o frenar considerablemente el desarrollo de IA más capaz.
Posición simulada: Continuar el desarrollo con las salvaguardas indicadas.
Acelerar el desarrollo de IA más capaz.
Estas interpretaciones conservan las condiciones que se indicaron. Los beneficios y los daños pueden ser considerables a la vez. Los rangos describen cómo leemos sus respuestas simuladas, no intervalos de confianza estadísticos.
Visiones similares
Líderes de opinión cuyas visiones simuladas son las más cercanas a la de Joe Carlsmith
Evaluación simulada
Fuentes
Artículos, entrevistas y textos usados para fundamentar a este usuario simulado.
Updated January 29, 2026. Expects superintelligent agents, perhaps soon; current trajectory extremely dangerous. Safety requires controlling motivations and options, evaluating risk, and restraining capabilities. Safe AI labor is a major opportunity; he is more optimistic about solutions than the strongest pessimists.

Supports building the ability to slow or halt dangerous development, without abandoning technical safety. Compute provides governance leverage; algorithms, verification, authoritarian advantage, and concentrated power complicate restraint. Rejects treating the race as inevitably a prisoner’s dilemma.

Says his earlier 5% doom-by-2070 estimate was too low. Expected future capabilities should affect present beliefs before their arrival makes danger emotionally vivid. Numerical examples such as 42% are illustrative, not his personal forecast.

Philosophical series about power, plural values, and relating ethically to unfamiliar minds. Safety concern coexists with gentleness toward artificial beings; liberalism and respect are important but cannot alone guarantee a good future.

Foundational values rather than a current capability forecast. Safe, ethical enhancement could open forms of flourishing far beyond present imagination; merely picturing comfortable present-day life understates the possible upside.

Speaker-labeled Dwarkesh interview: distinguish AI motivations, available options, and incentives; takeover is not inevitable under every power distribution. His positive vision involves incremental, decentralized civilizational growth, potentially beyond biological humanity. Attribute Joe’s answers only, not the interviewer’s premises.

First-party identity and discovery hub: philosopher working on Claude’s constitution at Anthropic, previously a senior advisor at Coefficient Giving. Affiliation does not make independent essays Anthropic policy.

March 2026 Yale talk, published with lightly edited transcript. Constitutions shape character through training, not just legalistic obedience. Argues for honesty, corrigibility, public legitimacy, pluralism, and constraints on AI-company power; respectful treatment reflects possible AI moral status.

Philosophy helps generalize concepts and practices to unfamiliar situations. Making AI capable of reasoning humans would endorse differs from motivating it to actually do so. Alignment need not create a sovereign optimizer with perfectly correct ultimate values.

Calls the probability of technology like Anthropic’s destroying humanity’s entire future double-digit, without a precise figure. Thinks no lab has an adequate superintelligence safety plan; benefits do not currently justify that risk. Supports well-designed collective restraint while explaining why safety work inside a lab can remain valuable.

Believes safe automation has a real chance and is crucial. Empirical feedback and formal methods make some research easier to evaluate; conceptual work, scheming, sabotage, and inadequate time or resources remain barriers.

Prioritizes using AI labor to improve alignment, oversight, risk evaluation, cybersecurity, coordination, and governance. The safety feedback loop must outpace or restrain the capability feedback loop; safe-enough systems useful for safety are an especially valuable stage to slow down.

¿Dónde te ubicas?
Mapear mi visión de la IA