Pergunta 1
Connor Leahy
x.com/npcollapseAI safety advocate at ControlAI who calls for laws and a verified international ban on building superintelligence while supporting other useful AI.
Como a IA mudará o mundo?
Na horizontal: a perspectiva Doom–Bloom expressa por essa pessoa. Para cima: escala da transformação.
Doom–Bloom: 1 de 100. Escala da transformação: 97 de 100. Intervalos de interpretação: 0 a 6 na horizontal, 92 a 100 na vertical. Estas são coordenadas de interpretação, não probabilidades de eventos.
≈99%
“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) · ago. de 2026
Uma premissa central
Competitive pressure then pushes companies and states to deploy them anyway.Resposta 1
Se essa premissa se revelasse diferente, como a perspectiva dessa pessoa mudaria?
Uma questão não resolvida
The uncertainty is not whether sufficiently capable AI would be profoundly consequential; it is whether humanity retains control through that transition.Resposta 2
O que ajudaria essa pessoa a distinguir os resultados plausíveis aqui?
O que poderia mudar essa opinião
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.Resposta 4
Que evidência seria suficiente e em que direção ela mudaria a visão dessa pessoa?
Mais detalhes
Várias interpretações continuam plausíveis: Esperam-se benefícios substanciais, com condições importantes ou limites de distribuição. / Espera-se pouco impacto positivo, mesmo que uma IA avançada surja. / Esperam-se ganhos limitados ou distribuídos de forma restrita.
38 / 100
Intervalo de interpretação de 0 a 67 na escala qualitativa.
Uma perda catastrófica ou irreversível ocupa um lugar central no futuro esperado.
100 / 100
Intervalo de interpretação de 100 a 100 na escala qualitativa.
As escolhas humanas podem redirecionar substancialmente a trajetória da IA.
72 / 100
Intervalo de interpretação de 50 a 75 na escala qualitativa.
Espera-se que a IA continue sendo um conjunto de ferramentas limitadas.
Espera-se que a IA se equipare às pessoas na maior parte do trabalho cognitivo.
Posição simulada: Espera-se que a IA supere substancialmente as pessoas no trabalho cognitivo.
Estas interpretações mantêm as condições que essa pessoa declarou. Tanto os benefícios quanto os danos podem ser substanciais. Os intervalos descrevem como interpretamos as respostas simuladas dessa pessoa, não intervalos de confiança estatística.
Visões de mundo semelhantes
Líderes de opinião cujas visões de mundo simuladas são mais próximas da visão de Connor Leahy
O que Connor Leahy já disse sobre a IA
Leahy warns that superintelligence would take control from humanity and calls for laws and a verified international ban, not a halt to useful AI.
“Superintelligent AI is neither a tool nor a weapon. It is an adversary.”
Post on X “We should criminalize the creation of superintelligence, and then we should push towards an international trust-but-verify regime”
Modern CTO podcast “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 “We still have time to prevent superintelligence, but the clock is ticking.”
ControlAI blog, America’s Security Depends on Stopping Superintelligence “If a superintelligence is built, humanity will lose control over its future.”
Testimony, Canadian Senate transport and communications committee
Citações literais das fontes indicadas, verificadas em 3 de out. de 2026
Avaliação simulada
Fontes
Artigos, entrevistas e textos usados para fundamentar este usuário simulado.
Current institutional profile describes his focus on superintelligence risk, policy and institutional preparedness.

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

Onde você se situa?
Mapear minha visão de mundo