Question 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.
Comment l’IA changera-t-elle le monde ?
Horizontalement : leur perspective Doom–Bloom telle qu’elle a été exprimée. Verticalement : ampleur de la transformation.
Doom–Bloom : 1 sur 100. Ampleur de la transformation : 97 sur 100. Plages d’interprétation : de 0 à 6 horizontalement, de 92 à 100 verticalement. Il s’agit de coordonnées d’interprétation, et non de probabilités d’événements.
≈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”
#201 - Connor Leahy - The AI That Escaped: Inside OpenAI's Rogue Agent Incident (The Peter McCormack Show) · août 2026
Une hypothèse centrale
Competitive pressure then pushes companies and states to deploy them anyway.Réponse 1
Si cette hypothèse s’avérait différente, comment leur perspective changerait-elle ?
Une question non résolue
The uncertainty is not whether sufficiently capable AI would be profoundly consequential; it is whether humanity retains control through that transition.Réponse 2
Qu’est-ce qui les aiderait à distinguer les résultats plausibles ici ?
Ce qui pourrait faire changer d’avis
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.Réponse 4
Quels éléments probants seraient suffisants, et dans quelle direction feraient-ils évoluer leur point de vue ?
Plus de détails
Plusieurs interprétations restent plausibles : Des bénéfices substantiels sont attendus, sous réserve de conditions importantes ou de limites dans leur répartition. / Peu d’effets positifs sont attendus, même si une IA avancée voit le jour. / Des bénéfices limités ou répartis de manière restreinte sont attendus.
38 / 100
Plage d’interprétation de 0 à 67 sur l’échelle qualitative.
Une perte catastrophique ou irréversible occupe une place centrale dans l’avenir attendu.
100 / 100
Plage d’interprétation de 100 à 100 sur l’échelle qualitative.
Les choix humains peuvent réorienter considérablement la trajectoire de l’IA.
72 / 100
Plage d’interprétation de 50 à 75 sur l’échelle qualitative.
L’IA devrait rester un ensemble d’outils aux capacités limitées.
L’IA devrait égaler les humains dans la plupart des tâches cognitives.
Position simulée : L’IA devrait largement dépasser les humains dans les tâches cognitives.
Ces interprétations conservent les conditions énoncées. Les bénéfices et les dommages peuvent tous deux être substantiels. Les plages décrivent notre lecture de leurs réponses simulées, et non des intervalles de confiance statistiques.
Visions du monde similaires
Leaders d’opinion dont les visions du monde simulées sont les plus proches de celle de Connor Leahy
Ce que Connor Leahy a dit sur l’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
Citations exactes tirées des sources en lien, vérifiées le 3 oct. 2026
Évaluation simulée
Sources
Articles, entretiens et écrits utilisés pour ancrer cet utilisateur simulé dans les faits.
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.

Où vous situez-vous ?
Cartographier ma vision du monde