Pregunta 1
Connor Leahy
x.com/npcollapseAI safety advocate at ControlAI who calls for laws and a verified international ban on building superintelligence while supporting other useful AI.
¿Cómo cambiará la IA el mundo?
Horizontal: su perspectiva Doom–Bloom expresada. Vertical: escala de la transformación.
Doom–Bloom: 1 de 100. Escala de la transformación: 97 de 100. Rangos de interpretación: de 0 a 6 en horizontal y de 92 a 100 en vertical. Son coordenadas de interpretación, no probabilidades de eventos.
≈99%
“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”
Un supuesto central
Competitive pressure then pushes companies and states to deploy them anyway.Respuesta 1
Si este supuesto resultara distinto, ¿cómo cambiaría su perspectiva?
Una pregunta sin resolver
The uncertainty is not whether sufficiently capable AI would be profoundly consequential; it is whether humanity retains control through that transition.Respuesta 2
¿Qué le ayudaría a distinguir aquí entre los desenlaces plausibles?
Qué podría hacer cambiar de opinión
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.Respuesta 4
¿Qué evidencia bastaría y en qué dirección movería su visión?
Más detalles
Varias lecturas siguen siendo plausibles: Se esperan beneficios sustanciales, con condiciones importantes o límites en su distribución. / Se espera poco impacto positivo, incluso si llega la IA avanzada. / Se esperan beneficios limitados o con una distribución restringida.
38 / 100
Rango de interpretación de 0 a 67 en la escala cualitativa.
Las pérdidas catastróficas o irreversibles ocupan un lugar central en el futuro esperado.
100 / 100
Rango de interpretación de 100 a 100 en la escala cualitativa.
Las decisiones humanas pueden redirigir sustancialmente la trayectoria de la IA.
72 / 100
Rango de interpretación de 50 a 75 en la escala cualitativa.
Se espera que la IA siga siendo un conjunto de herramientas acotadas.
Se espera que la IA iguale a las personas en la mayor parte del trabajo cognitivo.
Posición simulada: Se espera que la IA supere ampliamente a las personas en el trabajo cognitivo.
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 Connor Leahy
Lo que Connor Leahy ha dicho sobre la IA
Leahy warns that superintelligence would take control from humanity and calls for laws and a verified international ban, not a halt to useful AI.
“Superintelligent AI is neither a tool nor a weapon. It is an adversary.”
Post on X “We should criminalize the creation of superintelligence, and then we should push towards an international trust-but-verify regime”
Modern CTO podcast “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 “We still have time to prevent superintelligence, but the clock is ticking.”
ControlAI blog, America’s Security Depends on Stopping Superintelligence “If a superintelligence is built, humanity will lose control over its future.”
Testimony, Canadian Senate transport and communications committee
Citas textuales de las fuentes enlazadas, comprobadas el 3 oct 2026
Evaluación simulada
Fuentes
Artículos, entrevistas y textos usados para fundamentar a este usuario simulado.
Current institutional profile describes his focus on superintelligence risk, policy and institutional preparedness.

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

¿Dónde te ubicas?
Mapear mi visión de la IA