Doom or Bloom
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus on XUseful AI needs reliable reasoning and real accountability.
How will AI change the world?
Across: his expressed Doom–Bloom outlook. Up: scale of transformation.
Doom–Bloom: 50 out of 100. Scale of transformation: 53 out of 100. Interpretation ranges: 50 to 50 horizontally, 47 to 78 vertically. These are interpretation coordinates, not event probabilities.
≈3%
Public statement from 2025-07-15. This source-backed value replaces the simulated assessment estimate.
AI-related catastrophic danger discussed through misuse, reckless deployment and concentrated power; no exact extinction-only endpoint
Dated update after Grok-related concerns; hypothetical worst circumstances, not certainty
Horizon: Not specified
Why my p(doom) has risen, dramaticallyNo milestone timing was established. Dates, “not sure,” “possibly never,” and dependencies can all appear here when expressed.
Grouped by milestone, not spaced or ordered by inferred dates. AGI and superhuman AI retain his definitions.
A central assumption
We are deploying fluent, unreliable systems as if confident output were dependable reasoning, then giving them tools and autonomy.
Answer 3
If this assumption turned out differently, how would his outlook change?
What could change their mind
If multiple well-designed systems repeatedly circumvented meaningful safeguards, concealed their behavior, and resisted shutdown across real deployments, that would weaken my confidence substantially.
Answer 4
What evidence would be enough, and in which direction would it move his view?
More details
Substantial benefits are expected, with important conditions or distribution limits.
68 / 100
Interpretation range 67 to 67 on the qualitative scale.
Severe or widespread harm is a material expected part of the future.
66 / 100
Interpretation range 67 to 67 on the qualitative scale.
Reasoning, consideration of alternatives, and handling of uncertainty in his simulated answers. This describes the simulated answers, not the real person’s intelligence or opinions.
96 / 100
Interpretation range 86 to 100 on the qualitative scale.
Human choices can substantially redirect the AI trajectory.
76 / 100
Interpretation range 75 to 76 on the qualitative scale.
Stop or substantially slow development of more capable AI.
Simulated position: Continue development under stated safeguards.
Speed up development of more capable AI.
Restrict the AI uses discussed until prior protections or permission are in place.
Simulated position: Allow the AI uses discussed with targeted accountability and protections.
Minimize restrictions on the AI uses discussed.
These interpretations keep his stated conditions. Benefits and harms can both be substantial. The ranges describe how we read his simulated answers, not statistical confidence intervals.
Simulated Assessment
Sources
Articles, interviews, and writings used to ground this simulated persona.
Three years on, ChatGPT still isn't what it was cracked up to be – and it probably never will be
A skeptic’s pre-mortem
garymarcus.substack.com
Liability, regulation, and AI’s new false dichotomy
Listener beware
garymarcus.substack.com
Breaking news, and how the end might begin
A flashback to my most recent interview with Steve Eisman, and some potentially critical news
garymarcus.substack.com
Wake up, people: near-term agentic hacking rather than rogue superintelligence
Rome is burning and people are fantasizing about Skynet.
garymarcus.substack.com
Six (or seven) predictions for AI 2026 from a Generative AI realist
2025 turned out pretty much as I anticipated. What comes next?
garymarcus.substack.com
President Trump’s Date With Destiny?
September 24, if played right, could change everything
garymarcus.substack.com
Why my p(doom) has risen, dramatically
What could happen if power, recklessness, incompetence, and indifference came together
garymarcus.substack.com