Stuart Russell

Stuart Russell

UC Berkeley

UC Berkeley computer scientist who works on keeping AI under human control and calls for enforceable safety rules for advanced AI.

Bagaimana AI akan mengubah dunia?

Perubahan peradabanPerubahan bertahapDoomBloom
Posisi simulasiRentang interpretasi

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

Doom–Bloom: 27 dari 100. Skala transformasi: 80 dari 100. Rentang interpretasi: 22 hingga 50 secara horizontal, 70 hingga 100 secara vertikal. Ini adalah koordinat interpretasi, bukan probabilitas kejadian.

P(doom) Stuart Russell · disimpulkan

≈28%

0%100%

Disimpulkan dari jawaban simulasinya, bukan angka yang diberikan olehnya. Rentang yang masuk akal: 18–43%.

Hal-hal yang menentukan pandangannya

Asumsi utama

AI could produce enormous benefits, but on the current trajectory I am deeply concerned that increasingly capable systems will be deployed without adequate evidence that humans can control them or contain their failures.
Jawaban 2

Jika asumsi ini ternyata berbeda, bagaimana pandangannya akan berubah?

Hal yang dapat mengubah pandangan mereka

I would be persuaded by a justified safety case: evidence that a powerful system remains within specified limits under adversarial testing, unfamiliar situations, attempts to deceive or evade oversight, and failures in surrounding infrastructure—and that humans can reliably interrupt or correct it.
Jawaban 5

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

Detail lebih lanjut

Manfaat yang diperkirakan

Manfaat besar diperkirakan akan terwujud, dengan syarat penting atau keterbatasan distribusi.

66 / 100

Dampak kecilDampak transformatif

Rentang interpretasi 67 hingga 67 pada skala kualitatif.

Kerugian yang diperkirakan

Kerugian parah atau meluas merupakan bagian yang berarti dari masa depan yang diperkirakan.

69 / 100

Dampak kecilDampak transformatif

Rentang interpretasi 67 hingga 67 pada skala kualitatif.

Pengaruh manusia

Pilihan manusia dapat mengarahkan ulang lintasan AI secara signifikan.

82 / 100

Sedikit pengaruhPengaruh kuat

Rentang interpretasi 75 hingga 100 pada skala kualitatif.

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.

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

Pandangan dunia serupa

Pemimpin opini dengan pandangan dunia simulasi yang paling mendekati pandangan Stuart Russell

Penilaian Simulasi

Pertanyaan 1

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

AI could bring enormous benefits, but the default trajectory is not automatically safe. The central issue is whether humanity retains control as systems become more capable. If a system gives impressive answers or performs valuable work, that demonstrates usefulness—not that its objectives remain compatible with ours, that failures can be contained, or that humans can reliably intervene. That is why voluntary promises and transparency are insufficient. Developers should have to make justified safety cases and face liability when they create unacceptable risks. Safety is not an obstacle to progress; it is what makes lasting benefits possible. Autonomous weapons make the problem tangible. Cheap, small systems that select and attack human targets could make mass killing scalable and widely accessible. Small autonomous anti-personnel weapons should be banned before a catastrophe, not afterward. None of this means the outcome is predetermined. Asking for a fixed probability of disaster is rather like standing on a ship headed toward rocks and debating the probability of collision. Our task is to steer: establish enforceable requirements, preserve meaningful human control, and mobilize public and political action while there is still time.

Pertanyaan 2

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

I do not think the overall impact is fixed. AI could produce enormous benefits, but on the current trajectory I am deeply concerned that increasingly capable systems will be deployed without adequate evidence that humans can control them or contain their failures. Commercial usefulness is not a safety case. So my expectation depends heavily on whether society acts. With enforceable safety requirements, justified safety cases, liability, and firm limits such as a ban on small autonomous anti-personnel weapons, AI could be substantially beneficial. Without those measures, the harms could overwhelm the benefits—not only through accidents or loss of control, but through scalable surveillance, coercion, and killing. The important point is that this is not weather we are forecasting. It is a trajectory we can change. The right response is not to assign a comforting average between benefit and catastrophe, but to steer toward the beneficial outcome while we still retain the authority to do so.

Pertanyaan 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, and potentially completely. Systems that can perform an expanding range of intellectual tasks would reshape science, industry, government, warfare, and everyday life. But the depth of change depends on how far capabilities advance and, crucially, whether we retain control over their deployment. I would not claim that complete transformation is inevitable; capability may plateau, regulation may constrain applications, and social choices matter. Still, treating AI as merely another modest technological improvement would be a serious mistake.

Pertanyaan 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 do not assign a number. It is like asking the crew of a ship for the probability of hitting the rocks while they are still steering. The risk is serious enough to require enforceable safety measures; our actions now will help determine the outcome.

Pertanyaan 5

Bukti apa yang akan mengubah pandangan Anda tentang apakah manusia dapat mengendalikan AI yang kuat?

I would be persuaded by a justified safety case: evidence that a powerful system remains within specified limits under adversarial testing, unfamiliar situations, attempts to deceive or evade oversight, and failures in surrounding infrastructure—and that humans can reliably interrupt or correct it. A successful demonstration is not enough. If a system behaves well in a laboratory, that does not establish that it will remain controllable after deployment, modification, or access to greater resources. The evidence must address why the claimed safeguards should continue to work, with independent scrutiny and accountability when they do not. Conversely, repeated circumvention of controls, deceptive behavior, resistance to correction, or failures that become harder to contain as capability increases would strengthen my concern. Control should be demonstrated, not presumed from the fact that the system has behaved conveniently so far.

Sumber

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

What UC Berkeley AI experts are watching for in 2026

Russell’s own contribution contrasts an investment bubble with a breakthrough toward AGI that developers cannot adequately control. His January comments on a possible capability plateau are dated, not a September measurement. Other faculty forecasts are not attributed to him.

news.berkeley.edu
Feedback on California’s draft frontier-model policy report

Russell advocates justified safety cases and liability, arguing that transparency alone may not change a dangerous trajectory and that safety enables benefits. First two pages inspected. The undated PDF references March 2025 material; no exact publication date is inferred from crawling.

people.eecs.berkeley.edu
AI safety requires more than just slowing our pace

Russell calls for enforceable safety requirements, beyond a voluntary slowdown.

theguardian.com
A halt to autonomous AI weapons

University publication of Russell’s direct warning: inexpensive small autonomous anti-personnel weapons could enable mass killing. He calls for a ban before disaster and continued public engagement, not resignation to an inevitable outcome.

news.berkeley.edu
Opening statement on AI regulation at the US Senate

CHAI publication of his July 25, 2023 testimony. Frames human control over more powerful entities as the central problem and argues for regulation. Historical conceptual grounding, not current capability evidence.

humancompatible.ai
For Humanity #72: Stuart Russell on AI risk

Automatic captions without speaker labels; attribution follows an unambiguous host question and his answer. Asked whether he has a p(doom), he says a probability makes sense for aliens betting on humanity, but for us it is like steering a ship: you do not ask the probability of crashing, you work to steer away. The 5–10% and 10–30% figures he cites elsewhere are AI companies’ and CEOs’ estimates, not his own.

youtube.com
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