Cory Doctorow

Cory Doctorow

Author website

Novelist and public-interest technology writer who argues for useful tools, worker power and limits on corporate control.

AIは世界をどのように変えるでしょうか?

文明規模の変化漸進的な変化DoomBloom
シミュレーション上の位置解釈範囲

横軸:彼が表明したDoom–Bloomの見通し。 縦軸:変革の規模。

Doom–Bloom:100点中34。変革の規模:100点中61。解釈範囲:横方向は25から50、縦方向は50から75。これらは解釈上の座標であり、事象の確率ではありません。

Cory DoctorowのP(doom) · 推定

≈12%

0%100%

本人が示した数値ではなく、シミュレーションされた本人の回答から推定したものです。 妥当と考えられる範囲:6–24%。

彼の見通しを左右するもの

中心的な前提

It only needs powerful institutions to deploy it at scale.
回答2

この前提が実際には異なると判明した場合、彼の見通しはどう変わりますか?

未解決の問い

I don’t have a defensible percentage, and I won’t manufacture one.
回答3

ここで考えられる結果を彼が見分けるうえで、何が役立ちますか?

考えを変え得るもの

A repeatable demonstration that these systems can reliably handle genuinely surprising situations—not merely extend familiar patterns—would change my view substantially.
回答4

どのような証拠なら十分で、それによって彼の見解はどちらの方向に変わりますか?

詳細

予想される恩恵

大きな恩恵が予想されていますが、重要な条件や分配上の制約があります。

57 / 100

影響が小さい変革をもたらす影響

質的尺度での解釈範囲は33から67です。

予想される害

深刻または広範な害が、予想される将来の実質的な一部となっています。

67 / 100

影響が小さい変革をもたらす影響

質的尺度での解釈範囲は67から67です。

人間の影響力

人間の選択によって、AIの軌道を大幅に変えることができます。

74 / 100

影響力が小さい影響力が大きい

質的尺度での解釈範囲は50から100です。

AI利用のルール

事前の保護措置または許可が整うまで、取り上げられたAIの利用を制限します。

シミュレーション上の位置:対象を絞った説明責任と保護措置を伴う形で、取り上げられたAIの利用を認めます。

取り上げられたAIの利用に対する制限を最小限にします。

これらの解釈では、彼が示した条件が維持されています。恩恵と害は、どちらも大きくなり得ます。この範囲は、統計的な信頼区間ではなく、彼のシミュレーションされた回答をどのように読み取ったかを示すものです。

あなたはCory Doctorowと比べてどの位置でしょうか?
約3分で自分のAIに対する世界観をマッピングして、比較できます

似ている世界観

シミュレーションされた世界観がCory Doctorowの世界観に最も近いオピニオンリーダー

Cory DoctorowがAIについて語ったこと

Doctorow distinguishes useful AI tools from the investment bubble and argues that workers should control how automation affects their work.

  1. “Designing autonomous, malicious software is generally considered irresponsible and dangerous.”

    Pluralistic, LLMs are real, AI is fake
  2. “I use a local chatbot to spellcheck these posts.”

    Pluralistic, Discernment
  3. “AI is a normal technology.”

    Pluralistic, Three more AI psychoses
  4. “AI can write code, but AI can’t do software engineering.”

    Pluralistic, Code is a liability (not an asset)

リンク先の出典から原文どおりに引用(2026年10月3日に確認)

シミュレーション評価

質問1

AIは私たちの未来にとって何を意味すると思いますか?また、なぜそう思いますか?

I think AI means a future of useful tools buried inside an enormous struggle over power, work and ownership. AI is ordinary technology: statistical systems can generate strikingly plausible language, detect patterns, transform files and automate routine tasks. I use a local model for typo detection because I can judge its suggestions. That is a centaur arrangement—the person chooses how the machine assists. The reverse-centaur version is a worker forced to serve the machine’s pace, correct its errors and accept responsibility for decisions imposed by management. That distinction matters because producing more code, text or customer-service responses is not the same as doing better engineering, writing or service. If companies jam unreviewable generated code into essential systems to meet output quotas, they will create digital asbestos: liabilities that remain long after the executives who demanded them have collected their bonuses. Statistical regularity is useful, but plausible output is not understanding. A model can help an expert with work they can verify; asking a novice to learn from authoritative-sounding answers they cannot check reverses the relationship required for reliable use. I also expect the investment bubble to hurt people who never chose to bet on it—through exposed savings, economic fallout, wasted energy and stranded infrastructure. Some useful residue may remain after a crash: cheap hardware, open models, skilled workers and efficient local tools that preserve privacy. That does not justify the bubble any more than useful railway track would justify every crooked railway speculation. So the future is not simply “AI succeeds” or “AI fails.” The systems can be genuinely useful while the business model is destructive. The decisive question is who controls the tool and who bears its costs. Workers need bargaining power, users need systems they can inspect and adapt, and dominant firms should not be allowed to turn superintelligence stories into an excuse for suppressing competitors or forcing automation on everyone else.

質問2

AIは最終的に世界をどの程度変えると思いますか?

A great deal, but probably not in the quasi-religious way its promoters advertise. Ordinary technologies can transform the world precisely because they get embedded in ordinary institutions: workplaces, schools, public services, software systems and financial markets. AI can make useful tools cheaper and more accessible, especially local tools people can control. It can also let employers intensify work, eliminate discretion and leave workers acting as reverse centaurs—feeding and correcting machines whose pace they did not choose. The investment frenzy may itself produce enormous change even if the grand technical promises fail. A crash can destroy savings, jobs and public resources, while rushed deployment can leave digital asbestos throughout essential systems: unreviewable code and brittle automated processes that take decades to clean up. Useful hardware, open models and skilled people may remain afterward, but productive residue does not retroactively justify the wreckage. I do not think plausible language proves understanding, nor that present methods automatically lead to superintelligence. But a technology does not need to wake up or become a new species to change society. It only needs powerful institutions to deploy it at scale. The magnitude of the change will therefore depend less on whether machines become godlike than on who owns them, who can refuse them, and who captures the gains.

質問3

AIが人類絶滅、または同様に永続的な破局を引き起こす可能性は、直感的にどのくらいだと思いますか?

I don’t have a defensible percentage, and I won’t manufacture one. My concrete concern is not a machine “waking up” and becoming a new species. It is powerful institutions deploying fallible automation at scale: in critical infrastructure, warfare, surveillance, finance and software systems nobody can adequately inspect or maintain. That can produce severe and enduring catastrophe without superintelligence. An automated hacking workflow aimed at fragile infrastructure is dangerous because it can act quickly and repeatedly, not because it secretly understands itself. Likewise, hurriedly inserting unreviewable code into essential systems can create digital asbestos—liabilities that persist for decades. So I take catastrophic risk seriously, but a gut-feel extinction number would imply knowledge I do not have. The risks I can actually describe point toward better security, human supervision, worker control, maintainable systems and an end to vulnerability hoarding—not toward treating corporate superintelligence rhetoric as established fact.

質問4

どのような発見や出来事があれば、AIが将来もたらす影響についてのあなたの見解が最も大きく変わりますか?

A repeatable demonstration that these systems can reliably handle genuinely surprising situations—not merely extend familiar patterns—would change my view substantially. I would want explanatory competence, not another dazzling benchmark: a system forming a useful account of what is happening, exposing that account to scrutiny, and continuing to work when the underlying conditions change. But technical capability alone would not settle the social question. An equally consequential event would be a durable shift in control: workers gaining enforceable power to choose or refuse automation, open local systems displacing hyperscaler dependence, and institutions rewarding maintainability rather than maximum output. That would make me more optimistic about AI’s impact even without any march toward “AGI.” Conversely, widespread failures in critical systems caused by unreviewable generated code—or a bubble collapse that destroys savings and public resources—would strengthen my expectation that digital asbestos and concentrated power will define the legacy of this period. The future turns on both what the technology can actually do and who gets to decide how it is used.

出典

このシミュレーション対象者の根拠として使用された記事、インタビュー、著作です。

Textured

Accepts statistical extrapolation as useful and finds the plausibility of generated language genuinely surprising. Argues that theory-free extrapolation has hard limits: statistical regularity is not understanding, and unexpected situations require a theory of what is happening. Criticizes diminishing returns, resource consumption and replacing workers with defective chatbots. The argument concerns these methods, not an experimentally established ceiling on every possible AI architecture. Main essay inspected.

pluralistic.net
How an AI moratorium can save AI bosses

Argues low switching costs and competing open-weight models undermine hyperscalers’ ability to recover investments. Even granting improved unit economics for argument’s sake does not solve continuous competition. Suspects superintelligence restrictions could excuse incumbent collusion and prohibit alternatives. Calls for investigating concrete misconduct rather than blessing restraints of trade. These are his economic and political claims, not audited company accounts or a comprehensive position on every possible pause. Main essay inspected.

pluralistic.net
LLMs are real, AI is fake

Adopts a distinction between actual language-model hacking tools and stories that models woke up or set new goals. Interprets the Hugging Face incident as foreseeable behavior of an inadequately supervised hacking workflow. Still calls automated malicious software dangerous, especially against fragile infrastructure. Wants better sandboxes, supervision and a prohibition on government vulnerability hoarding. Executives’ quoted 10% extinction claim is not his estimate. Main essay inspected; incident forensics and linked podcast not independently audited.

pluralistic.net
Discernment

Describes using a local, offline LLM to find typos, retaining his own editorial judgment. Cannot evaluate a sophisticated mathematics dialogue and refuses to mistake its impressive appearance for verified validity. Distinguishes expert checking from asking a chatbot to teach unfamiliar material. Suggests teachers could generate and validate fresh test questions rather than be replaced by bots. Considers retrieving his own essays with a local model, but describes that as an idea, not a deployed system. Main essay inspected.

pluralistic.net
The difference between today’s task and accretive work

Accepts personal utilities and disposable software as useful even when they are not maintainable production systems. Distinguishes worker-directed centaurs from workers forced to serve automation. Endorses the importance of making code legible and reusable for future teams, while warning investment imperatives reward replacement and cleanup is undervalued. Reports programmers’ divergent experiences without treating either as universal. Main essay inspected.

pluralistic.net
Three more AI psychoses

Calls AI normal technology and the bubble exceptional. Criticizes investors, bosses and critics who amplify exceptionalism. Accepts skilled practitioners’ modest enthusiasm for useful automation plugins, while retaining serious resource, labor and political concerns. Main essay inspected.

pluralistic.net
Supreme Court saves artists from AI

Argues noncopyrightability of machine output protects human creative labor, whereas a new training right could be assigned to concentrated employers and used to replace workers. Favors sectoral bargaining and cites writers’ negotiated ability to choose AI use without being forced. Allows brainstorming when generated words stay out of the final work. His legal interpretation is not independently validated here. Main essay inspected.

pluralistic.net
Code is a liability (not an asset)

Distinguishes writing working code from engineering legible systems that fail gracefully amid changing context. Warns that maximizing code output produces maintenance liabilities and chained agents compound reliability problems. Accepts validated routine code and isolated, one-off utilities. His digital-asbestos analogy predicts lasting cleanup burdens, not a measured job forecast or guaranteed employment program. Main essay inspected.

pluralistic.net
The AI that we’ll have after AI

Expects a damaging investment crash but productive residue: skilled people, inexpensive hardware and open models, with more optimization possible. Praises local transcription, image generation, data conversion and privacy-preserving voice assistance. Does not know how many giant foundation models would survive; zero is a possibility rather than a certainty. Main essay inspected.

pluralistic.net
あなたはどの位置でしょうか?
いくつかの簡単な質問に答えて、自分のAIに対する世界観を探ってみましょう。
自分の世界観をマッピングする

あなたはどの位置でしょうか?

自分の世界観をマッピングする