Daron Acemoglu

Daron Acemoglu

x.com/DAcemogluMIT

Economist who argues AI should be steered toward making workers more capable rather than replacing them, so its gains are widely shared.

AI将如何改变世界?

文明层面的变革渐进式变化DoomBloom
模拟位置解读范围

横向:他表达的 Doom–Bloom 前景看法。 纵向:变革程度。

Doom–Bloom:100 中的 31。变革程度:100 中的 62。解读范围:横向为 25 至 36,纵向为 50 至 75。这些是解读坐标,而不是事件概率。

Daron Acemoglu的 P(doom) · 推断

≈3%

0%100%

根据他的模拟回答推断,并非他们给出的数字。 合理范围:低于 15%。

他的展望取决于什么

一个核心假设

But capabilities do not translate automatically into broad prosperity.
回答 2

如果这个假设实际并非如此,他的展望会如何变化?

更多详情

预期益处

预计收益有限,或仅分布在较小范围内。

36 / 100

影响小变革性影响

在定性尺度上,解读范围为 33 到 33。

预期危害

严重或广泛的危害预计将是未来不可忽视的一部分。

63 / 100

影响小变革性影响

在定性尺度上,解读范围为 33 到 67。

人类影响力

人类的选择可以大幅改变AI的发展轨迹。

74 / 100

影响力小影响力强

在定性尺度上,解读范围为 50 到 75。

发展速度

停止或大幅放缓开发能力更强的AI。

模拟位置:在落实所述保障措施的前提下继续开发。

加快开发能力更强的AI。

这些解读保留了他陈述的条件。益处和危害都可能很大。这些范围描述的是我们如何解读他的模拟回答,而不是统计置信区间。

与Daron Acemoglu相比,你的立场在哪里?
用大约3分钟描绘你自己的AI世界观,然后进行比较

相似的世界观

模拟世界观与 Daron Acemoglu 最接近的意见领袖

Daron Acemoglu关于AI说过的话

Acemoglu argues that AI should be steered toward complementing workers rather than replacing them, and that its direction needs democratic input.

  1. “My instinct is that democratic voice is essential, and relying too much on technocracy could be both dangerous and counterproductive.”

    Post on X
  2. “Agentic AI is not AGI, in my opinion, but it’s pretty impressive.”

    Justified Posteriors podcast
  3. “The problem rather may be that the way that frontier labs are training these models is leading to distorted intelligence.”

    Post on X
  4. “AI tools can also be designed to complement workers, enhancing their capabilities and productivity, rather than substituting for them.”

    Nature essay
  5. “What is at stake is not only shared prosperity, but also our democratic system.”

    Nature essay

逐字引自所链接的出处,核对于 2026年10月3日

模拟评估

问题 1

你认为AI对我们的未来意味着什么?为什么?

AI could be transformative, but its effects are not predetermined by capability alone. The crucial question is which technologies we choose to build. Today, investment incentives push strongly toward automation—using machines to replace workers and concentrate decision-making. That path may increase some measures of productivity, but it can also widen inequality, diminish the value of human expertise, and leave large parts of society with less economic and political power. A better path would use AI to create new human tasks: helping nurses make better judgments, enabling teachers to personalize instruction without displacing them, or giving workers information that expands their responsibilities. Simply making an existing task faster is not necessarily pro-worker; what matters is whether demand for human skills and expertise increases across the economy. This direction will not emerge automatically from competition among a few powerful firms. It requires public research, procurement, worker participation, better investment in skills, and democratic debate about what futures we want. I do not think we must stop innovation. But slowing particular developments to steer resources toward socially valuable applications can be entirely sensible. Ultimately, a future of high output but economically dispensable citizens would threaten dignity and democratic equality. Income transfers alone cannot replace the standing people gain from contributing meaningfully to society.

问题 2

Taking benefits and harms together, what overall impact do you expect AI to have?

On the current trajectory, I expect AI’s overall impact to be much less beneficial—and more unequal—than its technical capabilities suggest. We are devoting enormous resources to automation, surveillance, and replacing routine and professional tasks, rather than creating new tasks that make human expertise more valuable. That can shift income and decision-making power toward capital owners and a small group of firms while weakening workers’ economic standing and, ultimately, democratic voice. I do expect real benefits: better information, useful scientific tools, and productivity gains in some applications. Agents make the economic potential larger than I previously estimated, though I have not recalculated a number. But capabilities do not translate automatically into broad prosperity. Organizational adoption is slow, experimentation remains a bottleneck, and whole occupations are difficult to automate. The investment boom could therefore produce disappointing returns, while still worsening inequality. So my expected outcome is not technological catastrophe or effortless abundance. It is a mixed but unnecessarily disappointing future: genuine advances alongside concentrated gains, labor displacement, and weakened human expertise. That is the likely direction under present incentives, not an inevitability. Public procurement, research funding, worker voice, skills investment, and tax reform could redirect AI toward complementing people and producing much broader benefits.

问题 3

Setting aside good or bad: how much do you think AI will ultimately change the world—a little, a lot, or completely?

A lot. AI could be genuinely transformative, changing how firms organize work, how people acquire information, how science proceeds, and how income and power are distributed. But I would not say “completely.” Capabilities are not the same as economy-wide transformation: adoption is slow, organizations are difficult to redesign, experimental bottlenecks remain, and entire occupations contain many tasks that cannot simply be handed to machines. The scale of change will also depend on direction. AI built mainly to automate existing tasks will reshape labor markets and concentrate power, even if its aggregate productivity contribution is less dramatic than advertised. AI designed to create new human tasks could instead transform work by making expertise more valuable. So I expect large change, but its form and social significance will be determined as much by institutions and investment choices as by the models themselves.

问题 4

What’s your rough gut-feel chance that AI causes human extinction or a similarly permanent catastrophe? A number or “no idea” is fine.

No idea. I do not have the technical expertise or evidence to assign a meaningful probability to human extinction from AI.

来源

用于为此模拟用户提供事实依据的文章、访谈和著述。

你的立场在哪里?
回答几个简单问题,探索你自己的AI世界观。
描绘你自己的世界观

你的立场在哪里?

描绘我的世界观