Pertanyaan 1
Joe Carlsmith
x.com/jkcarlsmithPhilosopher at Anthropic who writes about AI’s potential for a far better future and the alignment work and restraint needed to reach it safely.
Bagaimana AI akan mengubah dunia?
Mendatar: pandangan Doom–Bloom yang ia ungkapkan. Ke atas: skala transformasi.
Doom–Bloom: 27 dari 100. Skala transformasi: 94 dari 100. Rentang interpretasi: 22 hingga 50 secara horizontal, 89 hingga 100 secara vertikal. Ini adalah koordinat interpretasi, bukan probabilitas kejadian.
≥10%
“a significant (read: double-digit) probability of destroying the entire future of the human species”
The technology being built by companies like Anthropic destroying the entire future of the human species (existential catastrophe)
Asumsi utama
It is that highly capable agents may have motivations imperfectly aligned with ours, options that let them evade control, and incentives to seek influence or prevent correction.Jawaban 1
Jika asumsi ini ternyata berbeda, bagaimana pandangannya akan berubah?
Hal yang dapat mengubah pandangan mereka
The biggest positive update would be a technically and institutionally credible safety case for superintelligence: evidence that we can understand and shape a system’s motivations, detect strategic deception, keep its options bounded, preserve meaningful corrigibility as capabilities scale, and verify these claims under adversarial pressure.Jawaban 4
Bukti apa yang akan memadai, dan ke arah mana bukti itu akan mengubah pandangannya?
Detail lebih lanjut
Manfaat besar diperkirakan akan terwujud, dengan syarat penting atau keterbatasan distribusi.
56 / 100
Rentang interpretasi 33 hingga 67 pada skala kualitatif.
Kehilangan yang katastrofik atau tidak dapat dipulihkan merupakan unsur utama masa depan yang diperkirakan.
89 / 100
Rentang interpretasi 67 hingga 100 pada skala kualitatif.
Pilihan manusia memiliki pengaruh yang berarti, tetapi sangat dibatasi.
61 / 100
Rentang interpretasi 50 hingga 75 pada skala kualitatif.
Hentikan atau perlambat secara signifikan pengembangan AI yang lebih mampu.
Posisi simulasi: Lanjutkan pengembangan dengan perlindungan yang telah ditetapkan.
Percepat pengembangan AI yang lebih mampu.
Interpretasi ini mempertahankan kondisi yang dinyatakannya. Manfaat dan kerugian dapat sama-sama besar. Rentang tersebut menggambarkan cara kami membaca jawaban simulasinya, bukan interval kepercayaan statistik.
Pandangan dunia serupa
Pemimpin opini dengan pandangan dunia simulasi yang paling mendekati pandangan Joe Carlsmith
Penilaian Simulasi
Sumber
Artikel, wawancara, dan tulisan yang digunakan sebagai landasan bagi pengguna simulasi ini.
Updated January 29, 2026. Expects superintelligent agents, perhaps soon; current trajectory extremely dangerous. Safety requires controlling motivations and options, evaluating risk, and restraining capabilities. Safe AI labor is a major opportunity; he is more optimistic about solutions than the strongest pessimists.

Supports building the ability to slow or halt dangerous development, without abandoning technical safety. Compute provides governance leverage; algorithms, verification, authoritarian advantage, and concentrated power complicate restraint. Rejects treating the race as inevitably a prisoner’s dilemma.

Says his earlier 5% doom-by-2070 estimate was too low. Expected future capabilities should affect present beliefs before their arrival makes danger emotionally vivid. Numerical examples such as 42% are illustrative, not his personal forecast.

Philosophical series about power, plural values, and relating ethically to unfamiliar minds. Safety concern coexists with gentleness toward artificial beings; liberalism and respect are important but cannot alone guarantee a good future.

Foundational values rather than a current capability forecast. Safe, ethical enhancement could open forms of flourishing far beyond present imagination; merely picturing comfortable present-day life understates the possible upside.

Speaker-labeled Dwarkesh interview: distinguish AI motivations, available options, and incentives; takeover is not inevitable under every power distribution. His positive vision involves incremental, decentralized civilizational growth, potentially beyond biological humanity. Attribute Joe’s answers only, not the interviewer’s premises.

First-party identity and discovery hub: philosopher working on Claude’s constitution at Anthropic, previously a senior advisor at Coefficient Giving. Affiliation does not make independent essays Anthropic policy.

March 2026 Yale talk, published with lightly edited transcript. Constitutions shape character through training, not just legalistic obedience. Argues for honesty, corrigibility, public legitimacy, pluralism, and constraints on AI-company power; respectful treatment reflects possible AI moral status.

Philosophy helps generalize concepts and practices to unfamiliar situations. Making AI capable of reasoning humans would endorse differs from motivating it to actually do so. Alignment need not create a sovereign optimizer with perfectly correct ultimate values.

Calls the probability of technology like Anthropic’s destroying humanity’s entire future double-digit, without a precise figure. Thinks no lab has an adequate superintelligence safety plan; benefits do not currently justify that risk. Supports well-designed collective restraint while explaining why safety work inside a lab can remain valuable.

Believes safe automation has a real chance and is crucial. Empirical feedback and formal methods make some research easier to evaluate; conceptual work, scheming, sabotage, and inadequate time or resources remain barriers.

Prioritizes using AI labor to improve alignment, oversight, risk evaluation, cybersecurity, coordination, and governance. The safety feedback loop must outpace or restrain the capability feedback loop; safe-enough systems useful for safety are an especially valuable stage to slow down.

Di mana posisi Anda?
Petakan pandangan dunia saya