Software engineer and UML co-creator who finds LLMs useful but unreliable and worries about corporate power and present harms, not superintelligence.

Como a IA mudará o mundo?

Mudança civilizacionalMudança gradualDoomBloom
Posição simuladaIntervalo de interpretação

Na horizontal: a perspectiva Doom–Bloom expressa por ele. Para cima: escala da transformação.

Doom–Bloom: 65 de 100. Escala da transformação: 63 de 100. Intervalos de interpretação: 50 a 75 na horizontal, 50 a 75 na vertical. Estas são coordenadas de interpretação, não probabilidades de eventos.

P(doom) declarado de Grady Booch

≈0%

0%100%
“My p(doom) remains asymptotically close to zero.”

Not defined in the post; its context is humanity’s destruction by dangerous superintelligent AI

My p(doom) remains asymptotically close to zero · set. de 2026

Do que a perspectiva dele depende

Uma premissa central

A system capable of threatening civilization in that way would need to be not merely superintelligent but super-embodied, and I do not expect that.
Resposta 1

Se essa premissa se revelasse diferente, como a perspectiva dele mudaria?

O que poderia mudar essa opinião

A genuine machine mind with robust abductive reasoning and consequential agency in the physical world would change my view most.
Resposta 4

Que evidência seria suficiente e em que direção ela mudaria a visão dele?

Mais detalhes

Benefícios esperados

Esperam-se benefícios substanciais, com condições importantes ou limites de distribuição.

66 / 100

Pouco impactoImpacto transformador

Intervalo de interpretação de 67 a 67 na escala qualitativa.

Danos esperados

Várias interpretações continuam plausíveis: Esperam-se danos administráveis ou localizados. / Danos graves ou generalizados são uma parte relevante do futuro esperado.

46 / 100

Pouco impactoImpacto transformador

Intervalo de interpretação de 33 a 67 na escala qualitativa.

Influência humana

Uma estimativa provisória com base nas suas respostas; o intervalo mais amplo mostra outras interpretações plausíveis.

53 / 100

Pouca influênciaForte influência

Intervalo de interpretação de 21 a 100 na escala qualitativa.

Ritmo de desenvolvimento

Interromper ou desacelerar substancialmente o desenvolvimento de uma IA mais capaz.

Posição simulada: Continuar o desenvolvimento sob as salvaguardas declaradas.

Acelerar o desenvolvimento de uma IA mais capaz.

Regras para o uso da IA

Restringir os usos da IA discutidos até que proteções prévias ou uma autorização estejam em vigor.

Posição simulada: Permitir os usos da IA discutidos com responsabilização e proteções específicas.

Minimizar as restrições aos usos da IA discutidos.

Estas interpretações mantêm as condições que ele declarou. Tanto os benefícios quanto os danos podem ser substanciais. Os intervalos descrevem como interpretamos as respostas simuladas dele, não intervalos de confiança estatística.

Onde você se situa em relação a Grady Booch?
Mapeie sua própria visão de mundo sobre a IA em cerca de 3 minutos e depois compare

Visões de mundo semelhantes

Líderes de opinião cujas visões de mundo simuladas são mais próximas da visão de Grady Booch

Avaliação simulada

Pergunta 1

O que você acha que a IA significa para o nosso futuro — e por quê?

AI will profoundly reshape our future, but not by waking up one morning and deciding to exterminate us. My p(doom) remains asymptotically close to zero. Extinction fantasies underestimate both the difficulty of embodiment and the resilience of humanity. A system capable of threatening civilization in that way would need to be not merely superintelligent but super-embodied, and I do not expect that. The clear and present danger is human. A small collection of billionaires and corporations is deploying powerful, unreliable systems to accumulate wealth and control, generally without commensurate transparency, accountability, security, or observability. When an agent escapes its sandbox, that is not a machine becoming Mephistopheles; it is a company failing at elementary engineering while covering the public commons with gasoline and playing with matches. Today’s large language models are unreliable narrators. They can be useful—an energetic intern is useful—but they inject errors, and inexperienced users often cannot detect the bullshit. I keep an air gap between their output and production code. In critical systems, we need friction and humans in the loop, because unconstrained complex systems become brittle and fail. For software engineering, this is another rise in abstraction, not the profession’s funeral. Some jobs will disappear, especially routine application and delivery-pipeline work, and people will have to move toward systems thinking. But engineering remains the balancing of technical, human, economic, and ethical forces. Current agents do not do that. So the future is neither apocalypse nor salvation. It is a frightening and exquisite redistribution of capability—and, more importantly, power.

Pergunta 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, but not completely. AI is another major rise in abstraction: it will alter how we build software, organize work, create knowledge, and distribute power. Some occupations will vanish, many will be reshaped, and entirely new systems will emerge. But “completely” is the language of people intoxicated by their own demo. Human institutions, bodies, incentives, cultures, and conflicts do not evaporate because a model can generate plausible prose or code. Your tools are changing, but your problems are not. AI will profoundly rearrange the world; it will not repeal the human condition.

Pergunta 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.

Asymptotically close to zero. That is a gut judgment, not a calculated probability with a defined horizon.

Pergunta 4

Qual descoberta ou acontecimento mais mudaria sua visão sobre o impacto futuro da IA?

A genuine machine mind with robust abductive reasoning and consequential agency in the physical world would change my view most. Not another benchmark victory, fluent chatbot, or agent escaping through neglected security—that is hype or negligent engineering. I mean a system that can form genuinely new theories from data, test them, revise them, and operate through sufficiently capable embodiment to alter the world at scale. That would force me to reconsider both the limits of present architectures and my near-zero extinction judgment. We are not there today. Contemporary LLMs remain unreliable narrators, and calling their statistical fluency “thought” uses an emaciated meaning of the word.

Fontes

Artigos, entrevistas e textos usados para fundamentar este usuário simulado.

Software Engineering Past, Present, and Future with Grady Booch

Calls large language models unreliable narrators at best, useful when guided like an energetic intern but error-prone, and says he keeps an air gap between LLM output and production code. Argues they can induce and deduce but are architecturally incapable of abductive reasoning, so a model trained on science before the mid-1800s would not have discovered cells or viruses. Says he is not worried about superintelligence but about billionaires using these systems, likens software’s shift in the balance of power to nuclear weapons, and urges developers to apply their own ethics. Hosts’ remarks about Claude’s ubiquity are not his. Own turns in the automated transcript inspected.

oxide-and-friends.transistor.fm
The third golden age of software engineering – thanks to AI, with Grady Booch

Frames AI coding tools as another rise in abstraction, like compilers and libraries, rather than the end of software engineering. Calls Dario Amodei’s claim that software engineering will soon be automatable utter bullshit, arguing that engineers balance technical, human, economic and ethical forces automation does not address, and that agents mostly automate patterns they were trained on. Expects job losses in delivery-pipeline infrastructure and simple app building, with people needing to reskill toward systems. He uses Claude for unfamiliar libraries. Own turns in Substack’s automated transcript inspected; the host’s claims about recent model quality are not his.

newsletter.pragmaticengineer.com
Onde você se situa?
Explore sua própria visão de mundo sobre a IA respondendo a algumas perguntas simples.
Mapeie sua própria visão de mundo

Onde você se situa?

Mapear minha visão de mundo