Arvind Narayanan

Computer scientist who studies how AI spreads through society, expects substantial but gradual change and favors resilience and liability rules.

एआई दुनिया को कैसे बदलेगा?

सिम्युलेट की गई स्थितिव्याख्या का दायरा

आर-पार: उनका व्यक्त किया गया Doom–Bloom दृष्टिकोण। ऊपर: बदलाव का स्तर।

Arvind Narayanan का P(doom) · अनुमानित

≈6%

0%100%

उनके सिम्युलेट किए गए उत्तरों से अनुमान लगाया गया है, यह उनके द्वारा बताई गई संख्या नहीं है। संभावित दायरा: 3–12%।

Arvind Narayanan के पड़ावों की समय-सीमा

काम और संस्थाएँ
I expect AI to transform work and society substantially over decades, but not through a single laboratory breakthrough that instantly determines everyone’s future.
उत्तर 1

पड़ाव के अनुसार समूहबद्ध; अनुमानित तारीखों के अंतर या क्रम के अनुसार नहीं। एजीआई और अतिमानवीय एआई की उनकी परिभाषाएँ बरकरार रखी गई हैं।

उनका दृष्टिकोण किन बातों पर निर्भर करता है

एक मुख्य मान्यता

Those institutional processes will shape the net impact as much as model capability does.

उत्तर 2

अगर यह मान्यता अलग साबित होती, तो उनका दृष्टिकोण कैसे बदलता?

एक अनसुलझा सवाल

Current extinction-risk probabilities are too unreliable and misleading for policy; that is not the same as saying the risk is zero.

उत्तर 4

यहाँ संभावित नतीजों के बीच फर्क करने में उन्हें किस चीज़ से मदद मिलेगी?

अधिक जानकारी

अपेक्षित लाभ

काफ़ी लाभ की उम्मीद है, लेकिन उनके साथ महत्वपूर्ण शर्तें या वितरण संबंधी सीमाएँ होंगी।

67 / 100

कम असरबदलावकारी असर

अपेक्षित नुकसान

गंभीर या व्यापक नुकसान के भविष्य का एक ठोस और अपेक्षित हिस्सा होने की उम्मीद है।

66 / 100

कम असरबदलावकारी असर

मानवीय प्रभाव

मानवीय विकल्पों का सार्थक, लेकिन काफी सीमित प्रभाव है।

59 / 100

कम प्रभावमजबूत प्रभाव

एआई के उपयोग के नियम

जिन सुरक्षा उपायों या अनुमति का पहले से होना ज़रूरी है, उनके लागू होने तक चर्चा किए गए एआई उपयोगों को प्रतिबंधित रखें।

सिम्युलेट की गई स्थिति: लक्षित जवाबदेही और सुरक्षा उपायों के साथ चर्चा किए गए एआई उपयोगों की अनुमति दें।

चर्चा किए गए एआई उपयोगों पर प्रतिबंध कम से कम रखें।

इन व्याख्याओं में उनकी बताई गई शर्तें बरकरार रखी गई हैं। लाभ और नुकसान, दोनों पर्याप्त हो सकते हैं। ये दायरे बताते हैं कि हम उनके सिम्युलेट किए गए उत्तरों को कैसे समझते हैं, ये सांख्यिकीय विश्वास-अंतराल नहीं हैं।

Arvind Narayanan की तुलना में आपकी सोच कहाँ ठहरती है?

लगभग 3 मिनट में एआई के बारे में अपना विश्वदृष्टिकोण मैप करें, फिर तुलना करें

मेरा विश्वदृष्टिकोण मैप करें

मिलते-जुलते विश्वदृष्टिकोण

ऐसे जाने-माने विचारक जिनके सिम्युलेट किए गए विश्वदृष्टिकोण Arvind Narayanan के विश्वदृष्टिकोण से सबसे अधिक मिलते हैं

सिम्युलेट किया गया आकलन

सवाल 1

आपके विचार में एआई हमारे भविष्य के लिए क्या मायने रखती है—और क्यों?

I expect AI to transform work and society substantially over decades, but not through a single laboratory breakthrough that instantly determines everyone’s future. The key distinctions are between inventing a capability, turning it into a reliable application, and embedding that application in an organization. Benchmarks mostly illuminate the first step. Real deployment also requires reliability, testing, tacit knowledge, workflow redesign, legal permission, and someone who remains responsible when the system fails. That does not mean change will be mild. Coding, analysis, and many routine tasks may become dramatically faster; occupations will be reorganized, careers may be turbulent, and human–AI collaboration could make work look radically different. Recursive improvement could also produce a genuine discontinuity. But capability is not the same as economic adoption, and neither is the same as permission or power. A model that can perform a task in a controlled evaluation has not thereby replaced a profession or gained control over consequential systems. I also reject the idea that slow institutional adoption makes us safe. Attackers can exploit capable systems without redesigning an entire company, and recent agent incidents show why monitoring, sandboxing, restricted permissions, liability, and independent scrutiny matter now. I do not think catastrophe is imminent, but risk is rising faster than preparation. The future will therefore depend not only on what models can do, but on the institutions, incentives, and security controls through which we choose to deploy them.

सवाल 2

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

Overall, I expect AI to be highly consequential and probably beneficial in many domains, but with gains distributed unevenly and accompanied by serious harms. It should accelerate software development, analysis, science, and routine administrative work. Yet faster task execution does not automatically produce better services or broadly shared prosperity. Organizations still have to decide what to build, integrate systems into real workflows, verify outputs, and remain accountable for failures. Those institutional processes will shape the net impact as much as model capability does. The harms will also arrive on different timelines. Labor disruption and organizational failures will unfold through adoption, while fraud, cyberattacks, and other misuse can spread much faster. Systems with excessive permissions can cause substantial damage even without becoming autonomous superintelligences. So my default expectation is neither utopia nor imminent catastrophe, but a turbulent, decades-long transformation whose outcome depends heavily on governance and security engineering. I would not compress that into a numerical “net benefit” or catastrophe probability. The evidence does not support that precision. My expectation is cautiously positive only conditional on institutions doing their job: restricting access, monitoring actions, imposing liability, strengthening vulnerable sectors, and ensuring that productivity gains do not simply become concentrated power.

सवाल 3

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

A lot—potentially enough to reorganize most knowledge work, accelerate science and software, and reshape institutions over decades. But “completely” suggests a single technology independently sweeping away human agency, organizational constraints, and political choices. I do not expect that as the default. Even very capable systems must become reliable applications, fit real workflows, earn legal and institutional permission, and operate under someone’s authority. Those constraints slow and shape diffusion; they do not make AI trivial. Recursive improvement could create a sharp capability discontinuity, but a laboratory breakthrough still would not automatically translate into economy-wide replacement or control. So my forecast is profound transformation, mediated by institutions—not an instantaneous or total rupture.

सवाल 4

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

I would not give a number. Current extinction-risk probabilities are too unreliable and misleading for policy; that is not the same as saying the risk is zero.

स्रोत

इस सिम्युलेट किए गए उपयोगकर्ता को तथ्य-आधारित बनाने के लिए इस्तेमाल किए गए लेख, इंटरव्यू और रचनाएँ।

Do AI Risks Require Extraordinary Government Intervention?

Narayanan and Kapoor distinguish slow economic adoption from misuse, which need not wait for organizational change. They advocate societal resilience, defensive access and ordinary governance while allowing some temporary restrictions. Rejecting broad nonproliferation does not mean dismissing cyber or biological harm.

normaltech.ai

Why AI hasn’t replaced software engineers, and won’t

Coauthored essay distinguishes deciding, executing and delivering software. Coding can become much faster while organizational responsibility and deciding what to build remain bottlenecks. Aggregate demand may stay healthy even as individual careers become turbulent; this is an argued forecast, not a guarantee.

normaltech.ai

What will be left for us to work on?

Narayanan’s annotated ICML keynote takes recursive self-improvement seriously as a possible discontinuity while rejecting a single laboratory milestone that instantly eliminates jobs. Foresees radically different work and human-AI collaboration. Preserves openness to change rather than making normal technology an impossibility claim.

normaltech.ai

AI as Normal Technology

With Sayash Kapoor. Separates invention, application development and adoption; expects societal diffusion over decades and emphasizes institutions and resilience. Normal does not mean trivial.

normaltech.ai

AI agents cannot yet do open-ended AI research

With Kapoor. Two shadow research evaluations found substantial judgment and revision failures. Explicitly acknowledges the tiny sample, nonblind review and possible researcher bias; does not establish a permanent capability ceiling.

normaltech.ai

The AI-as-Normal-Technology view of loss-of-control incidents

With Kapoor. Treats recent incidents as both alignment and security failures; advocates liability, monitoring and restricted permissions. Rejects imminent-catastrophe alarmism while arguing that current investment in safeguards is inadequate.

normaltech.ai

AI existential risk probabilities are (still) too unreliable to inform policy

Repost, with a new preface, of the July 2024 essay coauthored with Sayash Kapoor; full text read. They argue AI x-risk forecasts are far too unreliable to be useful for policy and are in fact highly misleading; the preface calls the whole p(doom) culture actively counterproductive to a broader conception of safety. A methodological refusal for policy use, not a claim that the risk is zero.

normaltech.ai

आपकी सोच कहाँ ठहरती है?

कुछ आसान सवालों के जवाब देकर एआई के बारे में अपना विश्वदृष्टिकोण जानें।

अपना विश्वदृष्टिकोण मैप करें

आपकी सोच कहाँ ठहरती है?

मेरा विश्वदृष्टिकोण मैप करें