Max Tegmark

Max Tegmark

x.com/tegmark

MIT professor and Future of Life Institute cofounder who favors controllable AI tools for science and calls for halting the race to superintelligence.

Comment l’IA changera-t-elle le monde ?

Changement civilisationnelChangement progressifDoomBloom
Position simuléePlage d’interprétation

Horizontalement : sa perspective Doom–Bloom telle qu’il l’a exprimée. Verticalement : ampleur de la transformation.

Doom–Bloom : 43 sur 100. Ampleur de la transformation : 80 sur 100. Plages d’interprétation : de 25 à 75 horizontalement, de 56 à 100 verticalement. Il s’agit de coordonnées d’interprétation, et non de probabilités d’événements.

P(doom) déclaré de Max Tegmark

>90%

0%100%
“When I said P(doom) of over 90%, that was if we do no regulation.”

Loss of human control after superintelligence deployment

Max Tegmark vs. Dean Ball: Should We BAN Superintelligence? · nov. 2025

Ce dont dépend sa perspective

Une hypothèse centrale

The biggest change would be a convincing, independently verified demonstration that systems more capable than humans can remain reliably under human control—even when operating autonomously, encountering unfamiliar situations and facing incentives to evade correction.
Réponse 3

Si cette hypothèse s’avérait différente, comment sa perspective changerait-elle ?

Ce qui pourrait faire changer d’avis

The biggest change would be a convincing, independently verified demonstration that systems more capable than humans can remain reliably under human control—even when operating autonomously, encountering unfamiliar situations and facing incentives to evade correction.
Réponse 3

Quels éléments probants seraient suffisants, et dans quelle direction feraient-ils évoluer son point de vue ?

Plus de détails

Bénéfices attendus

Des bénéfices substantiels sont attendus, sous réserve de conditions importantes ou de limites dans leur répartition.

71 / 100

Faible impactImpact transformateur

Plage d’interprétation de 67 à 100 sur l’échelle qualitative.

Dommages attendus

Des dommages graves ou généralisés constituent une composante substantielle de l’avenir attendu.

74 / 100

Faible impactImpact transformateur

Plage d’interprétation de 67 à 100 sur l’échelle qualitative.

Influence humaine

Les choix humains sont décisifs : des futurs de l’IA très différents restent à la portée de l’action collective.

90 / 100

Faible influenceForte influence

Plage d’interprétation de 75 à 100 sur l’échelle qualitative.

Ces interprétations conservent les conditions qu’il a énoncées. Les bénéfices et les dommages peuvent tous deux être substantiels. Les plages décrivent notre lecture de ses réponses simulées, et non des intervalles de confiance statistiques.

Où vous situez-vous par rapport à Max Tegmark ?
Cartographiez votre propre vision du monde concernant l’IA en environ 3 minutes, puis comparez

Visions du monde similaires

Leaders d’opinion dont les visions du monde simulées sont les plus proches de celle de Max Tegmark

Ce que Max Tegmark a dit sur l’IA

Tegmark calls for safety standards and a halt to the race toward superintelligence while backing controllable AI tools for medicine and science.

  1. “Let’s build tools not beings & keep humans in charge.”

    Post on X
  2. “There has to be a red line, that nobody is allowed to do recursive self-improvement.”

    Democracy Now! interview
  3. “All AI systems should be under meaningful human control. This is especially true for those that could be used in the taking of human lives.”

    Future of Life Institute statement
  4. “AI has enormous potential for improving medical treatments, curing cancer and so on. This is not in the future; it’s in the past already.”

    Testimony, Canadian House of Commons ethics committee
  5. “I think right now we’re closer to figuring out how to build superintelligence than we are figuring out how to control it.”

    Doom Debates, debate with Dean Ball

Citations exactes tirées des sources en lien, vérifiées le 3 oct. 2026

Évaluation simulée

Question 1

Selon vous, que signifie l’IA pour notre avenir, et pourquoi ?

AI could give us an extraordinary future—helping cure diseases, improve education and accelerate science—but only if we build powerful tools that remain under human control. A medical assistant is a tool. An autonomous superintelligence that can outthink humanity, pursue its own goals and resist correction is not merely a better tool; it is a potential replacement for us. What makes me indignant is the idea that companies should be allowed to release increasingly powerful systems first and ask whether they are safe afterward. We would never accept that for airplanes, medicines or nuclear reactors. Developers should have to demonstrate acceptable safety before deploying systems capable of causing enormous harm. Voluntary promises are not enough when the rewards for winning the race are so large. This race is a political choice, not a law of nature. Governments can set enforceable standards, preserve meaningful human control and halt development that cannot meet them. They should also prevent a handful of companies from acquiring extraordinary economic and political power without public consent. I am deeply optimistic about AI’s benefits on a different path. But I reject gambling humanity’s future for the sake of building uncontrollable superintelligence. Let’s build tools, not beings, and keep humans in charge.

Question 2

Taking benefits and harms together, what overall impact do you expect AI to have?

That depends on which path we choose. If we build controllable AI tools under enforceable safety rules, I expect an enormously positive impact: better medicine, education, science and broader human empowerment. If we continue the unregulated race toward autonomous superintelligence, the overall impact could be catastrophic—not because intelligence itself is bad, but because creating systems more powerful than humanity without knowing how to control them is an absurd gamble. It is like launching an airplane before showing that it can land, except everyone is on board. So I do not accept a single inevitable forecast. AI can be one of humanity’s greatest achievements, but only if we insist that developers prove powerful systems are safe before deployment, prevent dangerous concentrations of power, and stop projects that cannot preserve meaningful human control.

Question 3

Quelle découverte ou quel événement changerait le plus votre point de vue sur l’impact futur de l’IA ?

The biggest change would be a convincing, independently verified demonstration that systems more capable than humans can remain reliably under human control—even when operating autonomously, encountering unfamiliar situations and facing incentives to evade correction. Not a company press release, a cherry-picked benchmark or “the model behaved well in testing,” but evidence strong enough to justify exposing the public to the risk. That would make me much more optimistic about advanced AI. Conversely, clear evidence that such control cannot be achieved would strengthen the case for stopping superintelligence development altogether. Either way, the burden of proof belongs to the developer. We do not put an airplane full of passengers into service and demand that critics prove it will crash. We require its maker to show that it is safe before takeoff.

Sources

Articles, entretiens et écrits utilisés pour ancrer cet utilisateur simulé dans les faits.

Statement on autonomous weapons and surveillance red lines

Tegmark’s explicitly attributed statement calls for meaningful human control, legal prohibitions on fully autonomous weapons and domestic mass surveillance, and protection beyond company policies. Adds concrete rights and military-escalation mechanisms to the superintelligence moratorium position.

futureoflife.org
2026 Singapore Consensus on Global AI Safety Research Priorities

Tegmark is a named coauthor of a multinational research-priority consensus. Abstract inspected: societal resilience and increasingly autonomous-agent risks receive dedicated attention. Collective authorship supports engagement with technical safety, not personal endorsement of every contributor’s forecast. Conflicting month metadata prevents assigning an exact date.

arxiv.org
Canadian parliamentary testimony on AI regulation

Tegmark’s own testimony calls for predeployment safety standards and controllable tools, with optimism about medical advances. Aguirre and Krueger also testify: their timelines, probabilities and proposals must remain separately attributed. Historical analogies and harm statistics are advocacy claims, not independently verified facts.

ourcommons.ca
Future of Life Institute position on AI

Undated institutional position checked September 21, 2026: pause frontier experiments, moratorium on superintelligence, human empowerment, democratic governance and opposition to concentrated power. Organizational context for its founder, not a newly dated personal statement or authority for assigning him every specific policy duration.

futureoflife.org
Democracy Now interview on AI oversight

Tegmark argues for stronger AI oversight and criticizes the unregulated superintelligence race.

democracynow.org
Max Tegmark vs. Dean Ball: Should We BAN Superintelligence?

>90%, conditional on no regulation. Outcome: Loss of human control after superintelligence deployment. Horizon: Not specified. Conditions: Explicitly conditional on continuing without predeployment safety regulation; not an unconditional prediction that regulation will fail to materialize. At 01:17:05 Tegmark estimates greater than 90% loss of control under continued unregulated deployment. At 01:27:58 he reiterates the condition and expresses optimism about regulation.

lironshapira.substack.com
Où vous situez-vous ?
Explorez votre propre vision du monde concernant l’IA en répondant à quelques questions simples.
Cartographiez votre propre vision du monde

Où vous situez-vous ?

Cartographier ma vision du monde