Pseudonymous account that posts enthusiastically about AI and biotech progress, argues against pausing AI and worries about eroding human expertise.

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 83。变革程度:100 中的 67。解读范围:横向为 75 至 100,纵向为 47 至 78。这些是解读坐标,而不是事件概率。

Vittorio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:1–8%。

他的展望取决于什么

一个核心假设

If increasingly capable systems stopped producing meaningful advances in biology, mathematics, medicine, or engineering—if “cheap intelligence” turned out to mean endless polished output without useful discovery—that would weaken the central reason for my optimism.
回答 2

如果这个假设实际并非如此,他的展望会如何变化?

什么可能使其改变看法

The biggest thing would be a sustained gap between impressive demonstrations and real-world results.
回答 2

什么证据才足够,又会让他的观点朝哪个方向转变?

更多详情

预期益处

预计将带来具有变革性且广泛有价值的收益。

94 / 100

影响小变革性影响

在定性尺度上,解读范围为 67 到 100。

预期危害

预计会出现可控或局部的危害。

36 / 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

根据你的回答得出的暂定估计;较宽的范围表示其他合理解读。

51 / 100

影响力小影响力强

在定性尺度上,解读范围为 0 到 100。

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Vittorio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 Vittorio 最接近的意见领袖

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?

I think AI means dramatically cheaper intelligence, faster discovery, and a huge expansion of what humans can build. The most exciting part is not better chatbots. It is AI helping push the frontier in biology, mathematics, medicine, and engineering. If these systems let a small team investigate problems that once required an enormous institution, we could discover treatments sooner, create entirely new tools, and give many more people access to capabilities that were previously scarce. That is why I oppose treating delay as morally free. People are dying now from diseases we do not understand or cannot treat. Slowing scientific progress has victims too. Catastrophic-risk rhetoric often ignores that side of the ledger, while “alignment” is invoked without anyone explaining clearly what it means. I am far more worried about demographic decline and whether we still have children and functioning institutions than I am persuaded by vague claims that progress itself must stop. The point of automation is human flourishing—not replacing humanity. If machines do more unwanted work, people should have more time for family, children, creativity, and exploration. But I do worry about dependence. A senior engineer plus AI may eliminate junior hiring, which quietly destroys the apprenticeship pipeline that produces future senior engineers. Better AI may cover that gap, but then civilization can lose the ability to do essential work without the machines. So yes, I expect enormous benefits. I also think we need to notice when our institutions and human expertise are being hollowed out rather than pretending every consequence of progress is automatically good.

问题 2

哪项发现或事件最可能改变你对AI未来影响的看法?

The biggest thing would be a sustained gap between impressive demonstrations and real-world results. If increasingly capable systems stopped producing meaningful advances in biology, mathematics, medicine, or engineering—if “cheap intelligence” turned out to mean endless polished output without useful discovery—that would weaken the central reason for my optimism. I would also update if we saw concrete, repeated harms from dependence that outweighed those gains: institutions losing critical human expertise, apprenticeship collapsing, and AI proving unable to replace the knowledge pipeline it helped destroy. That would make the future look much more brittle. Conversely, verified scientific breakthroughs—new treatments, genuinely new biology, hard mathematical results—would strengthen my view. I do not have some magic benchmark or single alignment test. I care about what these systems actually enable, what lives they improve, and whether humans remain capable rather than becoming helpless without them.

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