質問1
Max Tegmark
x.com/tegmarkMIT professor and Future of Life Institute cofounder who favors controllable AI tools for science and calls for halting the race to superintelligence.
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43。変革の規模:100点中80。解釈範囲:横方向は25から75、縦方向は56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。
>90%
“When I said P(doom) of over 90%, that was if we do no regulation.”
Loss of human control after superintelligence deployment
Max Tegmark vs. Dean Ball: Should We BAN Superintelligence? · 2025年11月
中心的な前提
The biggest change would be a convincing, independently verified demonstration that systems more capable than humans can remain reliably under human control—even when operating autonomously, encountering unfamiliar situations and facing incentives to evade correction.回答3
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?
考えを変え得るもの
The biggest change would be a convincing, independently verified demonstration that systems more capable than humans can remain reliably under human control—even when operating autonomously, encountering unfamiliar situations and facing incentives to evade correction.回答3
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
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。
71 / 100
質的尺度での解釈範囲は67から100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。
74 / 100
質的尺度での解釈範囲は67から100です。
人間の選択が決定的です。大きく異なるAIの未来が、今なお集団的に実現可能な範囲にあります。
90 / 100
質的尺度での解釈範囲は75から100です。
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Max Tegmarkの世界観に最も近いオピニオンリーダー
Max TegmarkがAIについて語ったこと
Tegmark calls for safety standards and a halt to the race toward superintelligence while backing controllable AI tools for medicine and science.
“Let’s build tools not beings & keep humans in charge.”
Post on X “There has to be a red line, that nobody is allowed to do recursive self-improvement.”
Democracy Now! interview “All AI systems should be under meaningful human control. This is especially true for those that could be used in the taking of human lives.”
Future of Life Institute statement “AI has enormous potential for improving medical treatments, curing cancer and so on. This is not in the future; it’s in the past already.”
Testimony, Canadian House of Commons ethics committee “I think right now we’re closer to figuring out how to build superintelligence than we are figuring out how to control it.”
Doom Debates, debate with Dean Ball
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。
Tegmark’s explicitly attributed statement calls for meaningful human control, legal prohibitions on fully autonomous weapons and domestic mass surveillance, and protection beyond company policies. Adds concrete rights and military-escalation mechanisms to the superintelligence moratorium position.

Tegmark is a named coauthor of a multinational research-priority consensus. Abstract inspected: societal resilience and increasingly autonomous-agent risks receive dedicated attention. Collective authorship supports engagement with technical safety, not personal endorsement of every contributor’s forecast. Conflicting month metadata prevents assigning an exact date.

Tegmark’s own testimony calls for predeployment safety standards and controllable tools, with optimism about medical advances. Aguirre and Krueger also testify: their timelines, probabilities and proposals must remain separately attributed. Historical analogies and harm statistics are advocacy claims, not independently verified facts.

Undated institutional position checked September 21, 2026: pause frontier experiments, moratorium on superintelligence, human empowerment, democratic governance and opposition to concentrated power. Organizational context for its founder, not a newly dated personal statement or authority for assigning him every specific policy duration.

Tegmark argues for stronger AI oversight and criticizes the unregulated superintelligence race.

>90%, conditional on no regulation. Outcome: Loss of human control after superintelligence deployment. Horizon: Not specified. Conditions: Explicitly conditional on continuing without predeployment safety regulation; not an unconditional prediction that regulation will fail to materialize. At 01:17:05 Tegmark estimates greater than 90% loss of control under continued unregulated deployment. At 01:27:58 he reiterates the condition and expresses optimism about regulation.

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