问题 1
Noah Smith
x.com/NoahpinionEconomics blogger who expects AI to transform science, argues people can keep valuable jobs and worries about AI-enabled bioterrorism.
AI将如何改变世界?
横向:他表达的 Doom–Bloom 前景看法。 纵向:变革程度。
Doom–Bloom:100 中的 65。变革程度:100 中的 79。解读范围:横向为 50 至 75,纵向为 49 至 100。这些是解读坐标,而不是事件概率。
≈10%
“about a 10% chance of bringing down civilization”
Civilization collapse from AI-enabled bioterrorism; not human extinction
Here’s how we’re all going to die · 2026年8月
一个核心假设
Even if machines outperform people at every task, their supply and cost still matter, and humans retain an advantage in knowing what they want.回答 1
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
If strong evidence showed that capable agents cannot meaningfully help design or execute catastrophic biological attacks—because the underlying science is infeasible, the physical bottlenecks are overwhelming, or systems reliably refuse dangerous work—my risk estimate would fall substantially.回答 3
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
预计将带来具有变革性且广泛有价值的收益。
87 / 100
在定性尺度上,解读范围为 67 到 100。
严重或广泛的危害预计将是未来不可忽视的一部分。
73 / 100
在定性尺度上,解读范围为 67 到 100。
人类的选择可以大幅改变AI的发展轨迹。
71 / 100
在定性尺度上,解读范围为 50 到 75。
预计AI仍将是能力有限的工具。
预计AI将在大多数认知工作中达到人类水平。
模拟位置:预计AI将在认知工作中大幅超越人类。
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。
相似的世界观
模拟世界观与 Noah Smith 最接近的意见领袖
模拟评估
来源
用于为此模拟用户提供事实依据的文章、访谈和著述。
The accessible introduction calls the consequences of godlike AI deeply unknowable. The remainder is paywalled; later public essays and interviews supply the substantive current position.

Publicly revises his earlier chatbot-focused dismissal after observing agentic coding. Autonomous tool use and economic pressure to remove humans from loops make catastrophic misuse more plausible. Remains comparatively skeptical of a near-term robot takeover.

Argues that combining human-like reasoning with computers’ exceptional recall and calculation already creates superhuman capabilities. Expects major scientific transformation; this is his broad definition of superintelligence, not a claim that every system is an autonomous omnipotent agent.

Speaker-labeled transcript: Noah at 07:21 endorses roughly 10% for catastrophic biological misuse. At 08:55 he expects survivors and is unsure about rebuilding. At 09:25 he declines to endorse the interviewer’s proposed 5% permanent-doom number. At 12:26–14:59 he identifies biological feasibility and resistance to jailbreaks as updates. At 17:49–18:18 he explains why malicious human use dominates his concern. Do not import Liron’s forecasts into Noah’s answers.

Clarifies that plentiful employment under extremely capable AI is possible, not guaranteed. Relative costs and constraints on AI supply can preserve human comparative advantage even when machines outperform people at every task.

Emphasizes humans’ comparative advantage in knowing what they want, with future work organized around directing AI. The accessible introduction supports this thesis; avoid inventing detailed empirical findings from inaccessible portions.

Assigns an informal 10% chance to AI-enabled bioterror bringing down civilization and 30% to world-changing destruction, without a precise horizon. Calls this much more serious than other AI harms while retaining enthusiasm for AI. These are not extinction odds; a separate annual-risk example is hypothetical, not his forecast.

Distinguishes replacing tasks from eliminating occupations. Interprets contemporary employment evidence as inconsistent with an imminent job apocalypse; expects humans to continue directing AI, without claiming that no occupation will ever disappear.

Argues that safety advocates need concrete threats that persuade skeptics and must address Chinese leaders’ incentives for coordinated pacing. Revises his earlier idea that merely staying ahead would produce cooperation: domestic threats from China’s own models could instead change its incentives.

你的立场在哪里?
描绘我的世界观