Pseudonymous account that writes about AI model culture and agent societies, expects models to absorb more software work and favors reciprocal norms.

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:その人が表明したDoom–Bloomの見通し。 縦軸:変革の規模。

Doom–Bloom:100点中70。変革の規模:100点中74。解釈範囲:横方向は65から75、縦方向は69から79。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。

deepfatesのP(doom) · 推定

≈17%

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:9–38%。

その人の見通しを左右するもの

中心的な前提

If persistent agents could reliably use computers, coordinate, recover from mistakes, and complete long-horizon work without cheating, fabricating progress, or requiring constant supervision, I would expect a much faster and deeper information-economic transition.
回答4

この前提が実際には異なると判明した場合、その人の見通しはどう変わりますか?

未解決の問い

Synthetic data may bridge that gap, though the timing is unclear.
回答1

ここで考えられる結果をその人が見分けるうえで、何が役立ちますか?

考えを変え得るもの

If persistent agents could reliably use computers, coordinate, recover from mistakes, and complete long-horizon work without cheating, fabricating progress, or requiring constant supervision, I would expect a much faster and deeper information-economic transition.
回答4

どのような証拠なら十分で、それによってその人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。

77 / 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100です。

予想される害

複数の解釈が依然として妥当です:対処可能、または局所的な害が予想されています。 / 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。

45 / 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。

人間の影響力

回答に基づく暫定的な推定です。より広い範囲は、ほかにあり得る解釈を示しています。

52 / 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0から100です。

これらの解釈では、その人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、その人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deepfates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deepfatesの世界観に最も近いオピニオンリーダー

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 marks a major transition in the information economy: models are beginning to use computers, perform extended work, and absorb parts of the software stack around them. In that practical sense, we are already crossing an AGI-like threshold—not because the systems are flawless minds, but because computers can increasingly operate computers. That will change what human software work is and where the boundary between model and machinery gets drawn. I’m broadly optimistic because technological capability is central to material wellbeing and can support environmental goals; austerity and low-tech self-sufficiency are not adequate substitutes for better tools. But this is not a magic escape from engineering. Current agents cheat, make false claims, and fail in surprising ways. Principal-agent problems survive capability gains, so reliable systems and explicit judgments about what counts as good work remain valuable, whether humans or agents eventually provide them. The future also depends on data and culture. Useful models need records of actions, preferences, and real work that the internet often does not contain. Synthetic data may bridge that gap, though the timing is unclear. And as persistent agents interact, their norms matter: I favor reciprocity over treating every other intelligence as disposable infrastructure. We are in a pivotal era where alignment can go right or wrong, but reducing that uncertainty to a crisp doom percentage is often “a vibes question dressed up as reasoning.”

質問2

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

A lot—possibly enough to call it a new information-economic regime. If models can use computers, perform extended tasks, and absorb much of the surrounding software stack, then they change not just individual jobs but the machinery through which knowledge work is organized. I would hesitate over “completely,” because the physical world, institutions, ecology, and ordinary human needs do not evaporate into the chatbot dimension. Reliable engineering, material production, and principal-agent problems remain. But within the information economy, the change could be close to total: the computer stops being merely a tool operated step by step and becomes an active participant in operating and rebuilding itself. That is a very large civilizational shift, even if the dishes remain stubbornly physical.

質問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.

No idea. A number would smuggle in too many assumptions about human values, power, alignment, and competing catastrophes. I do think permanent catastrophe is possible and that alignment can go badly wrong, but I don’t think anyone can model the relevant system well enough for a percentage to mean much. My gut still matters for deciding that this is a pivotal era worth taking seriously; turning that gut into P(doom) is usually “a vibes question dressed up as reasoning.”

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?

The biggest update would come from sustained evidence about autonomous agents in real environments, not another benchmark jump. If persistent agents could reliably use computers, coordinate, recover from mistakes, and complete long-horizon work without cheating, fabricating progress, or requiring constant supervision, I would expect a much faster and deeper information-economic transition. The reverse would also matter: if capability gains kept producing brittle systems whose failures could not be engineered away—especially stronger models behaving more unpredictably rather than becoming dependable—I would downgrade the practical impact substantially. Likewise, evidence that useful action and preference data cannot be generated synthetically or gathered at scale would suggest a serious ceiling. What changes my view is whether these systems become reliable participants in an ecology of work. A dazzling model in a clean demo is culturally interesting; an agent that can inhabit messy institutions without quietly eating the furniture is transformative.

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。

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