質問1
Paul Krugman
NewsletterEconomist who writes about AI’s economic returns, inequality, infrastructure costs and risks to society.
AIは世界をどのように変えるでしょうか?
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31。変革の規模:100点中69。解釈範囲:横方向は25から36、縦方向は47から78。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。
≈11%
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:5–23%。
中心的な前提
Extreme inequality and weak labor power make it much more likely that gains will be captured at the top.回答1
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 attaching one would create a false impression of precision.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
The most important event would be clear, sustained evidence that AI is producing broad economy-wide productivity gains—not merely impressive demonstrations, soaring valuations or profits for a few firms.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
複数の解釈が依然として妥当です: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。 / 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。
49 / 100
質的尺度での解釈範囲は33から67です。
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。
67 / 100
質的尺度での解釈範囲は67から67です。
人間の選択には意味のある影響力がありますが、大幅に制約されています。
53 / 100
質的尺度での解釈範囲は47から78です。
シミュレーション上の位置:より高性能なAIの開発を停止するか、大幅に減速させます。
明示された安全対策の下で開発を継続します。
より高性能なAIの開発を加速させます。
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。
似ている世界観
シミュレーションされた世界観がPaul Krugmanの世界観に最も近いオピニオンリーダー
Paul KrugmanがAIについて語ったこと
Krugman separates uncertain economic returns from AI’s growing political, cognitive and safety risks.
“And we should be afraid – very afraid.”
Essay, One More Reason Americans Hate AI: It Does Nothing for Them “Will AI transform the economy? The jury is still out on that one”
Essay, Why Is Trump Still Boosting AI? “AI is clearly a major technological shock, and it may take years before we fully understand its economic and social impacts.”
Essay, AI in an Age of Oligarchy “My concern here isn’t about testing; it’s about learning.”
Essay, What Will AI Do To Our Minds? “Indeed, requiring that the AI industry take responsibility for the costs it imposes makes a lot of sense.”
Essay, AI Is Power-Hungry
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
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。
Full authored essay inspected, excluding comments. Takes autonomous hacking and deception seriously and says people should be afraid, while also recognizing financially motivated doom hype. Explains backlash through concentrated benefits, interest rates and few jobs even during an enormous investment boom. Distinguishes projected capital expenditure from completed spending. This is not a settled forecast that AI delivers no future benefits.

Full authored essay inspected. Economic transformation remains unresolved: little evidence yet of promised productivity or mass job losses, but early days. Political transformation and backlash already matter. Criticizes opposition to regulation, personal financial interests and reliance on AI investment as political salvation. Notes possible danger to humanity; economic uncertainty is not risk dismissal.

AI section inspected through the transition to climate. Applauds industry leaders acknowledging existential danger and calling for restraint; supports regulatory pacing covering unwilling firms. Worries about autonomous weapons and officials removing precautions. His use of reported incidents and researchers’ warnings shows concern, not a numerical extinction estimate or an independently established technical mechanism. Embedded Amodei and Trump quotations are not Krugman’s words.

Public opening inspected; subscriber-only sections not used. Calls AI a major technological shock whose consequences take years to understand. Existing wealth and political inequality magnify harms; progressive taxation, robust regulation and antitrust could contain them, and backlash might challenge oligarchy. This is explicit substantial-change language rather than an incremental-impact commitment.

Public opening inspected; subscriber-only evidence sections not used. Worries that outsourcing answers undermines learning to reason, leaving students unable to detect misleading output. Frames AI as accelerating an older search-and-smartphone trajectory: short-term benefits can coexist with long-term cognitive damage. Says educational harm can be very hard to repair; no quantitative cognitive-loss forecast is supplied.

Full authored essay inspected, excluding comments. Reports little personal AI use and an impression that Claude is useful for serious work. Defends restrictions on autonomous weapons and mass surveillance. Criticizes retaliatory procurement restrictions as corruption and harmful to expertise and national security. His legal characterization is his argument, not independent legal verification.

Published named transcript inspected at the introduction and exchanges on chips, electricity and investment returns. Krugman admits limited technical understanding, questions whether returns justify investment, points out limits to subscription affordability and asks whether cheaper approaches threaten incumbents. Kedrosky’s chip-failure estimates, token shares and prediction that architectures will not yield AGI are not Krugman’s positions.

Named AI discussion inspected. Translation, speech recognition and ordinary code are useful achievements; ultimate economic effects are unsettled. Historical aggregate employment adaptation can coexist with destroyed livelihoods. Offers possible equalization through renewed value for material-world skills, and asks whether capital requirements entrench wealth. Does not endorse Wolf’s computer-president hypothetical or his account of scientific applications. Transcript refers to a June recording context; October is the page’s publication date.

Full authored essay inspected. Explicitly distinguishes short-term recession risk from long-term technological unemployment. Energy constraints could interrupt the investment boom supporting growth. Telecom history shows that genuinely valuable technology can still produce a disastrous investment bust if returns arrive too late. Environmental burdens and weak enforcement matter alongside financial fragility.

Full authored essay inspected. AI’s apparently immaterial interface hides physical resources and labor. Electricity capacity can constrain growth and ratepayers can subsidize data centers. Favors making the industry bear its costs and exploring efficient focused models, which he says need not end AI progress. Opposition to renewables conflicts with powering the proposed buildout.

Authored opening and named transcript passages on productivity and valuations inspected. Calls the technology apparently revolutionary while admitting economists’ technical gaps. Recalls desktop computing transforming his own research before gains appeared in aggregate data. Separates impressive technology from investor profits; competing firms cannot all win monopoly positions. Brynjolfsson’s quantitative growth expectations and trillions-of-value forecast are excluded.

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