问题 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.
AI将如何改变世界?
横向:他们表达的 Doom–Bloom 前景看法。 纵向:变革程度。
Doom–Bloom:100 中的 1。变革程度:100 中的 97。解读范围:横向为 0 至 6,纵向为 92 至 100。这些是解读坐标,而不是事件概率。
≈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”
一个核心假设
Competitive pressure then pushes companies and states to deploy them anyway.回答 1
如果这个假设实际并非如此,他们的展望会如何变化?
一个尚未解决的问题
The uncertainty is not whether sufficiently capable AI would be profoundly consequential; it is whether humanity retains control through that transition.回答 2
什么能帮助他们区分这里各种合理的结果?
什么可能使其改变看法
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.回答 4
什么证据才足够,又会让他们的观点朝哪个方向转变?
更多详情
仍有几种解读是合理的:预计将带来显著益处,但受到重要条件或分配方面的限制。 / 即使高级AI出现,预计也几乎不会产生积极影响。 / 预计收益有限,或仅分布在较小范围内。
38 / 100
在定性尺度上,解读范围为 0 到 67。
灾难性或不可逆的损失是预期未来的核心。
100 / 100
在定性尺度上,解读范围为 100 到 100。
人类的选择可以大幅改变AI的发展轨迹。
72 / 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。
这些解读保留了他们陈述的条件。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们的模拟回答,而不是统计置信区间。
相似的世界观
模拟世界观与 Connor Leahy 最接近的意见领袖
Connor Leahy关于AI说过的话
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
逐字引自所链接的出处,核对于 2026年10月3日
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。
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.

你的立场在哪里?
描绘我的世界观