Pertanyaan 1
Noah Smith
x.com/NoahpinionEconomics blogger who expects AI to transform science, argues people can keep valuable jobs and worries about AI-enabled bioterrorism.
Bagaimana AI akan mengubah dunia?
Mendatar: pandangan Doom–Bloom yang ia ungkapkan. Ke atas: skala transformasi.
Doom–Bloom: 65 dari 100. Skala transformasi: 79 dari 100. Rentang interpretasi: 50 hingga 75 secara horizontal, 49 hingga 100 secara vertikal. Ini adalah koordinat interpretasi, bukan probabilitas kejadian.
≈10%
“about a 10% chance of bringing down civilization”
Civilization collapse from AI-enabled bioterrorism; not human extinction
Here’s how we’re all going to die · Agu 2026
Asumsi utama
Even if machines outperform people at every task, their supply and cost still matter, and humans retain an advantage in knowing what they want.Jawaban 1
Jika asumsi ini ternyata berbeda, bagaimana pandangannya akan berubah?
Hal yang dapat mengubah pandangan mereka
If strong evidence showed that capable agents cannot meaningfully help design or execute catastrophic biological attacks—because the underlying science is infeasible, the physical bottlenecks are overwhelming, or systems reliably refuse dangerous work—my risk estimate would fall substantially.Jawaban 3
Bukti apa yang akan memadai, dan ke arah mana bukti itu akan mengubah pandangannya?
Detail lebih lanjut
Manfaat transformatif yang bernilai luas diperkirakan akan terwujud.
87 / 100
Rentang interpretasi 67 hingga 100 pada skala kualitatif.
Kerugian parah atau meluas merupakan bagian yang berarti dari masa depan yang diperkirakan.
73 / 100
Rentang interpretasi 67 hingga 100 pada skala kualitatif.
Pilihan manusia dapat mengarahkan ulang lintasan AI secara signifikan.
71 / 100
Rentang interpretasi 50 hingga 75 pada skala kualitatif.
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.
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 Noah Smith
Penilaian Simulasi
Sumber
Artikel, wawancara, dan tulisan yang digunakan sebagai landasan bagi pengguna simulasi ini.
The accessible introduction calls the consequences of godlike AI deeply unknowable. The remainder is paywalled; later public essays and interviews supply the substantive current position.

Publicly revises his earlier chatbot-focused dismissal after observing agentic coding. Autonomous tool use and economic pressure to remove humans from loops make catastrophic misuse more plausible. Remains comparatively skeptical of a near-term robot takeover.

Argues that combining human-like reasoning with computers’ exceptional recall and calculation already creates superhuman capabilities. Expects major scientific transformation; this is his broad definition of superintelligence, not a claim that every system is an autonomous omnipotent agent.

Speaker-labeled transcript: Noah at 07:21 endorses roughly 10% for catastrophic biological misuse. At 08:55 he expects survivors and is unsure about rebuilding. At 09:25 he declines to endorse the interviewer’s proposed 5% permanent-doom number. At 12:26–14:59 he identifies biological feasibility and resistance to jailbreaks as updates. At 17:49–18:18 he explains why malicious human use dominates his concern. Do not import Liron’s forecasts into Noah’s answers.

Clarifies that plentiful employment under extremely capable AI is possible, not guaranteed. Relative costs and constraints on AI supply can preserve human comparative advantage even when machines outperform people at every task.

Emphasizes humans’ comparative advantage in knowing what they want, with future work organized around directing AI. The accessible introduction supports this thesis; avoid inventing detailed empirical findings from inaccessible portions.

Assigns an informal 10% chance to AI-enabled bioterror bringing down civilization and 30% to world-changing destruction, without a precise horizon. Calls this much more serious than other AI harms while retaining enthusiasm for AI. These are not extinction odds; a separate annual-risk example is hypothetical, not his forecast.

Distinguishes replacing tasks from eliminating occupations. Interprets contemporary employment evidence as inconsistent with an imminent job apocalypse; expects humans to continue directing AI, without claiming that no occupation will ever disappear.

Argues that safety advocates need concrete threats that persuade skeptics and must address Chinese leaders’ incentives for coordinated pacing. Revises his earlier idea that merely staying ahead would produce cooperation: domestic threats from China’s own models could instead change its incentives.

Di mana posisi Anda?
Petakan pandangan dunia saya