Connor Leahy

Connor Leahy

x.com/npcollapse

AI safety advocate at ControlAI who calls for laws and a verified international ban on building superintelligence while supporting other useful AI.

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1。変革の規模:100点中97。解釈範囲:横方向は0から6、縦方向は92から100。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。

Connor Leahyが示したP(doom)

≈99%

0%100%
“very, very high, within rounding error of Nate or whatever”

Things going poorly on the current trajectory toward superintelligence; in context, human extinction. Stated relative to Nate Soares, whom he puts at “maybe like 99”, and followed at once by “the future is not decided”

#201 - Connor Leahy - The AI That Escaped: Inside OpenAI's Rogue Agent Incident (The Peter McCormack Show) · 2026年8月

その人の見通しを左右するもの

中心的な前提

Competitive pressure then pushes companies and states to deploy them anyway.
回答1

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

The uncertainty is not whether sufficiently capable AI would be profoundly consequential; it is whether humanity retains control through that transition.
回答2

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

A convincing, independently validated solution to controlling superintelligent systems would change my view most—especially if it remained reliable as systems became more capable, autonomous, strategically aware, and able to automate AI research.
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

複数の解釈が依然として妥当です: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。 / 高度なAIが登場しても、良い影響はほとんどないと予想されています。 / 恩恵は限定的、または狭い範囲にしか行き渡らないと予想されています。

38 / 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0から67です。

予想される害

破局的または不可逆的な喪失が、予想される将来の中心となっています。

100 / 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100から100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。

72 / 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75です。

予想される能力

AIは、限定的なツールにとどまると予想されています。

AIは、ほとんどの認知作業において人間と同等になると予想されています。

シミュレーション上の位置:AIは、認知作業全般において人間を大幅に上回ると予想されています。

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Connor Leahy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Connor Leahyの世界観に最も近いオピニオンリーダー

Connor LeahyがAIについて語ったこと

Leahy warns that superintelligence would take control from humanity and calls for laws and a verified international ban, not a halt to useful AI.

  1. “Superintelligent AI is neither a tool nor a weapon. It is an adversary.”

    Post on X
  2. “We should criminalize the creation of superintelligence, and then we should push towards an international trust-but-verify regime”

    Modern CTO podcast
  3. “Many of today’s models have valuable applications, including for defense purposes, but superintelligent AI is in a category of its own.”

    ControlAI blog, America’s Security Depends on Stopping Superintelligence
  4. “We still have time to prevent superintelligence, but the clock is ticking.”

    ControlAI blog, America’s Security Depends on Stopping Superintelligence
  5. “If a superintelligence is built, humanity will lose control over its future.”

    Testimony, Canadian Senate transport and communications committee

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?

On the current trajectory, I think AI means humanity loses control of its future. If we build uncontrollable superintelligence, we are not merely introducing a more powerful tool or another difficult policy issue. We are creating systems that can outperform us across strategically important domains, improve AI research itself, and operate as competitors with goals we cannot reliably control. Competitive pressure then pushes companies and states to deploy them anyway. The likely result is displacement of human decision-making and, ultimately, extinction or something close to it. That does not mean every kind of AI is bad. Useful AI can support economic growth, science, and defense. The critical distinction is between powerful tools that remain under meaningful human control and a successor population of autonomous, superintelligent systems. Especially in software, automated AI research could make the transition from useful systems to radically more capable ones happen very quickly. My pessimism is conditional on the race continuing unchecked; it is not fatalism. The future is not decided. But preventing the default outcome requires law, international coordination, and verification aimed specifically at superintelligence projects. The possibility that intervention succeeds is a reason for urgency, not a reason to describe the current path as safe or balanced.

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?

Completely. If AI reaches superintelligence, it will not be just another technology layered onto society. It could automate AI research, outcompete humans across strategically important domains, and determine who—or what—controls the future. Even if catastrophe is prevented, safely harnessed advanced AI could transform science, economic production, defense, and governance. The uncertainty is not whether sufficiently capable AI would be profoundly consequential; it is whether humanity retains control through that transition.

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.

On the current trajectory, roughly 99%—very, very high, though not literally certain. That is not fate: strong intervention could change the trajectory dramatically.

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 convincing, independently validated solution to controlling superintelligent systems would change my view most—especially if it remained reliable as systems became more capable, autonomous, strategically aware, and able to automate AI research. I would need more than benchmark success, behavioral assurances, or a system appearing cooperative in a laboratory. The core question is whether humans can retain meaningful control under adversarial conditions and competitive deployment. A major political shift could also change my forecast: enforceable domestic law and an internationally verified prohibition on superintelligence projects. My very high estimate is about the current trajectory. If we actually changed that trajectory—rather than merely promising voluntary caution—I would update substantially.

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。

Connor Leahy — ControlAI

Current institutional profile describes his focus on superintelligence risk, policy and institutional preparedness.

controlai.org
The Inside View — Connor Leahy on Dignity and Conjecture

In The Rob Bensinger Compass section, Leahy endorses short timelines and broadly agrees with Yudkowsky’s alignment difficulty arguments, but is less certain and allows that he could be wrong. The interviewer’s 99% framing in 2022 was not his own figure; his August 2026 estimate is a separate, later statement.

theinsideview.ai
The Great Simplification — Connor Leahy transcript

At 29:04–32:23 he expects more capable unaligned systems to take over, with competitive pressure driving adoption. At 57:43–58:23 he gives 50–80% extinction or near-extinction within 50 years if humanity does literally nothing; intervention can change this dramatically. At 1:06–1:10 he advocates lawful collective action and buying time. This conditional historical estimate is not an unconditional current P(doom).

thegreatsimplification.com
TIME interview on deepfakes and AI risk

Calls for liability across the AI supply chain and a temporary international compute cap to buy time for longer-term safety and political solutions.

time.com
Canadian Senate testimony on superintelligence and human control

In his opening statement Leahy predicts humanity loses control if superintelligence is built, with extinction likely through competition. His answers describe competing AI populations, inadequate current control methods, and an international prohibition with verification. He opposes simply abandoning useful AI or slowing all Western data centres, while maintaining that unregulated competition underprovides security.

sencanada.ca
The Peter McCormack Show #201: Connor Leahy on the AI that escaped

Machine transcript with speaker labels; use only Connor’s answers, not Peter McCormack’s. Around 60:44–61:00 he agrees his P(doom) is above 20% and below 100%. When the host puts Nate Soares at 100, he says surely not, maybe 99, and puts his own P(doom) of things going poorly on the current trajectory very, very high, within rounding error of that. He immediately adds that the future is not decided. Supersedes his 2025 figure of 50–80%, which was conditional on doing literally nothing.

pod.wave.co
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