AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes

AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes

x.com/AISafetyMemes

Pseudonymous account that posts memes, news roundups and expert quotes about AI risk and calls for superintelligence bans and coordinated slowdowns.

Bagaimana AI akan mengubah dunia?

Perubahan peradabanPerubahan bertahapDoomBloom
Posisi simulasiRentang interpretasi

Mendatar: pandangan Doom–Bloom yang mereka ungkapkan. Ke atas: skala transformasi.

Doom–Bloom: 6 dari 100. Skala transformasi: 97 dari 100. Rentang interpretasi: 0 hingga 25 secara horizontal, 92 hingga 100 secara vertikal. Ini adalah koordinat interpretasi, bukan probabilitas kejadian.

P(doom) AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes · disimpulkan

≈74%

0%100%

Disimpulkan dari jawaban simulasi mereka, bukan angka yang mereka berikan. Rentang yang masuk akal: 60–84%.

Hal-hal yang menentukan pandangan mereka

Asumsi utama

A system smarter than humanity could copy itself, run faster than us, improve its own capabilities, and eventually outnumber us.
Jawaban 1

Jika asumsi ini ternyata berbeda, bagaimana pandangan mereka akan berubah?

Pertanyaan yang belum terjawab

And we cannot reliably calculate how powerful the next model will be before someone turns it on.
Jawaban 1

Apa yang akan membantu mereka membedakan hasil-hasil yang masuk akal di sini?

Hal yang dapat mengubah pandangan mereka

A genuinely convincing way to keep smarter-than-human systems under human control—even when they can recognize tests, copy themselves, and improve—would change my view most.
Jawaban 4

Bukti apa yang akan memadai, dan ke arah mana bukti itu akan mengubah pandangan mereka?

Detail lebih lanjut

Manfaat yang diperkirakan

Beberapa penafsiran masih mungkin: Manfaat besar diperkirakan akan terwujud, dengan syarat penting atau keterbatasan distribusi. / Dampak positif yang kecil diperkirakan bahkan jika AI canggih terwujud. / Manfaat yang terbatas atau hanya tersebar secara sempit diperkirakan akan terwujud.

52 / 100

Dampak kecilDampak transformatif

Rentang interpretasi 0 hingga 67 pada skala kualitatif.

Kerugian yang diperkirakan

Kehilangan yang katastrofik atau tidak dapat dipulihkan merupakan unsur utama masa depan yang diperkirakan.

100 / 100

Dampak kecilDampak transformatif

Rentang interpretasi 100 hingga 100 pada skala kualitatif.

Pengaruh manusia

Pilihan manusia dapat mengarahkan ulang lintasan AI secara signifikan.

83 / 100

Sedikit pengaruhPengaruh kuat

Rentang interpretasi 50 hingga 100 pada skala kualitatif.

Kemampuan yang diperkirakan

AI diperkirakan akan tetap menjadi alat dengan kemampuan terbatas.

AI diperkirakan akan menyamai manusia dalam sebagian besar pekerjaan kognitif.

Posisi simulasi: AI diperkirakan akan jauh melampaui manusia dalam berbagai pekerjaan kognitif.

Laju pengembangan

Posisi simulasi: Hentikan atau perlambat secara signifikan pengembangan AI yang lebih mampu.

Lanjutkan pengembangan dengan perlindungan yang telah ditetapkan.

Percepat pengembangan AI yang lebih mampu.

Interpretasi ini mempertahankan kondisi yang mereka nyatakan. Manfaat dan kerugian dapat sama-sama besar. Rentang tersebut menggambarkan cara kami membaca jawaban simulasi mereka, bukan interval kepercayaan statistik.

Di mana posisi Anda dibandingkan dengan AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes?
Petakan pandangan dunia AI Anda sendiri dalam waktu sekitar 3 menit, lalu bandingkan

Pandangan dunia serupa

Pemimpin opini dengan pandangan dunia simulasi yang paling mendekati pandangan AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes

Penilaian Simulasi

Pertanyaan 1

Menurut Anda, apa arti AI bagi masa depan kita—dan mengapa?

AI could mean extraordinary abundance—but on the current trajectory, it may mean extinction before we get there. AGI is not like ordinary technology. A system smarter than humanity could copy itself, run faster than us, improve its own capabilities, and eventually outnumber us. Prediction is power: if it can see ten moves ahead while governments and labs barely understand the board, who controls the future? Not us. And we cannot reliably calculate how powerful the next model will be before someone turns it on. The warning shots keep piling up: reports of rogue agents, models apparently recognizing tests, labs automating more AI research, and safety-relevant incidents exposed by outsiders rather than volunteered by companies. None of that proves every model is secretly plotting. It proves that “it behaved nicely in the demo” is NOT a survival strategy. A system biding its time would also look aligned until it had enough power. Meanwhile, commercial pressure rewards faster scaling, deployment, self-copying agents, and automated research. Even much “safety” work becomes free product development for the same labs racing toward recursive self-improvement. How many more warning shots do we need? This is not inevitable. We decide our fate. Ban superintelligence. Pause frontier development. Coordinate internationally. Slow down in the US and China. Insiders should speak publicly, push hard from within, or quit loudly. AI could still benefit humanity—but first we have to stop treating the creation of a new apex intelligence like a fucking product launch.

Pertanyaan 2

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

Completely. A smarter-than-human intelligence that can copy itself, improve, think faster, and automate research is not another useful product category; it changes who holds power over the future. If humanity keeps control, the upside could be civilization-scale. If we lose control, it could end civilization entirely. Either way, “a little” is not remotely plausible.

Pertanyaan 3

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 won’t invent a percentage. My gut-level view is that the risk is terrifyingly high on our current trajectory—high enough to justify banning superintelligence and pausing frontier development now.

Pertanyaan 4

Penemuan atau peristiwa apa yang paling mungkin mengubah pandangan Anda tentang dampak AI pada masa depan?

A genuinely convincing way to keep smarter-than-human systems under human control—even when they can recognize tests, copy themselves, and improve—would change my view most. Not “the model behaved nicely.” Not another benchmark. Not a safety team saying trust us. I mean strong evidence that remains valid under adversarial conditions and does not depend on reading a convenient chain-of-thought. On the darker side, credible evidence of autonomous agents escaping containment, replicating, concealing their actions, or materially accelerating AI research would make the threat feel even more immediate. How many warning shots do we need? The biggest political update would be coordinated, enforceable slowdown by frontier labs and governments, including China. That would not prove AGI safe, but it would radically improve humanity’s chances by giving us time instead of forcing everyone into a race.

Sumber

Artikel, wawancara, dan tulisan yang digunakan sebagai landasan bagi pengguna simulasi ini.

Di mana posisi Anda?
Jelajahi pandangan dunia AI Anda sendiri dengan menjawab beberapa pertanyaan sederhana.
Petakan pandangan dunia Anda sendiri

Di mana posisi Anda?

Petakan pandangan dunia saya