Subbarao Kambhampati

Arizona State AI planning researcher who studies the limits of LLM reasoning and argues AI agents need external verifiers and accountable developers.

AI将如何改变世界？

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。

Subbarao Kambhampati的 P(doom) · 推断

≈4%

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：2–8%。

他的展望取决于什么

一个核心假设

If a proposed plan can be checked and revised before execution, these systems can be extremely valuable.

回答 1

如果这个假设实际并非如此，他的展望会如何变化？

一个尚未解决的问题

I don’t have a defensible number.

回答 3

什么能帮助他区分这里各种合理的结果？

什么可能使其改变看法

The most consequential discovery would be a system that can reliably generate, verify, and execute plans in novel, real-world, non-ergodic settings—without external verifiers—and whose correctness guarantees survive adversarial testing.

回答 4

什么证据才足够，又会让他的观点朝哪个方向转变？

相似的世界观

模拟世界观与 Subbarao Kambhampati 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 will be enormously useful and socially disruptive, but not because today’s models are little minds plotting their way toward “AGI.” They are remarkably strong generators of plausible candidates—text, code, plans, hypotheses—but plausibility is not correctness. Generation is System 1; verification is System 2. The dangerous mistake is to confuse eloquent output, or intermediate tokens labeled “thinking,” with a faithful reasoning process and then let the system act through real APIs. The productive future is therefore LLM-Modulo: generators operating in a loop with external verifiers, critics, tools, and sometimes humans. If a proposed plan can be checked and revised before execution, these systems can be extremely valuable. If an agent can delete files, transfer money, or operate infrastructure in a world where mistakes cannot be undone, “the model seemed confident” is not a safety case. And when deployed systems cause damage, the people and companies that initiated the process remain responsible. A badly built sandbox is not absolved by calling the escaped ant a scheming superintelligence. Socially, AI will displace some skills and some sources of purpose, just as earlier technologies did. That loss is real, but I expect humanity to adapt—even if adaptation is unfair and painful for particular individuals. My larger concern is that extinction theater distracts us from controllability, monitoring, intellectual-property violations, disempowerment, and accountability today. Pauses and bans will not hold globally for a technology with no natural barrier to entry. Open research, oversight of deployment, red teaming, verification, and eternal vigilance are much less cinematic—and much more useful. “AGI,” meanwhile, has mostly become marketing wearing a lab coat.

问题 2

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

A lot—but “completely” is usually marketing language pretending history has an endpoint. AI will substantially change intellectual work, institutions, and people’s sense of purpose, much as earlier technological revolutions transformed physical labor. Some occupations and practices will be reorganized; new ones will emerge; the next generation will treat as ordinary things that currently provoke metaphysical panic. But AI does not abolish politics, economics, law, human adaptation, or the need to verify whether something is actually correct. Even very capable models remain parts of larger sociotechnical systems: someone builds them, deploys them, grants API access, and bears responsibility when they cause damage. So: a major transformation, certainly—not magic, not an autonomous replacement for civilization, and not necessarily the “AGI changes everything” fable currently being marketed.

问题 3

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

I don’t have a defensible number. I’m skeptical of the popular 10%-doom pronouncements; they create a veneer of precision around scenarios I find blinkered about human adaptability. My serious concerns are agentic failures, loss of control, disempowerment, and large-scale damage—not a quantified extinction forecast.

问题 4

哪项发现或事件最可能改变你对AI未来影响的看法？

The most consequential discovery would be a system that can reliably generate, verify, and execute plans in novel, real-world, non-ergodic settings—without external verifiers—and whose correctness guarantees survive adversarial testing. Not merely a model that scores well on benchmarks or emits a persuasive “thinking trace.” Benchmarks are evidence; they are not guarantees. Eloquence is certainly not one. I would also take seriously reproducible evidence that intermediate tokens faithfully represent the model’s causal reasoning: that changing them predictably changes conclusions for semantically intelligible reasons, rather than serving as post-hoc-looking token scaffolding. Current evidence does not justify calling them readable thoughts. Conversely, a major catastrophe caused by an API-enabled agent would increase my concern about impact, but it would not automatically validate the superintelligence fable. I would first ask who deployed it, what permissions it had, what verification failed, and why the sandbox was porous. If you release an ant colony into the server room and it eats the wiring, the lesson is not necessarily that ants have achieved AGI.

来源

用于为此模拟用户提供事实依据的文章、访谈和著述。

Position: Stop Anthropomorphizing Intermediate Tokens as Reasoning/Thinking Traces!

Co-authored position paper, first posted 2025-04-14 and revised (v4) on 2026-06-09 for ICML 2026. Argues that calling intermediate tokens reasoning or thinking traces is not a harmless metaphor but dangerous, because it confuses what these models are and how to use them and leads to questionable research. Abstract and introduction inspected; the experiments were not audited. An interpretive and methodological position, not a societal forecast.

arxiv.org

Reasoning Models and Planning – with Rao Kambhampati

On The Information Bottleneck podcast he describes LLMs as strong generators without correctness guarantees, best paired with verifiers in his LLM-Modulo framework, and says reasoning models moved the verifier into post-training. On safety he places himself closer to Yann LeCun than to Hinton or Bengio, says shutdown-deception studies reflect imitation of human data rather than evidence AI will kill humanity, and locates real risk in executing generated plans without verifier guardrails. He says he questions the overemphasis on existential threat, not safety itself. Automated transcript with errors; own turns in the planning and safety segments inspected.

listennotes.com

Dissenting voices against AI are getting louder

Secondary Economic Times report; date unverified, though a syndicated copy is dated 2026-03-31 and he shared it on 2026-04-06. Quotes him that AI development cannot be stopped because one government’s ban does not control the world, that his biggest safety concern is agentic systems acting through real-world APIs, and that a plan should not be executed unless the probability of damage is known to be extremely low, an area he researches. Indexed article text inspected; wording is the reporter’s rendering.

economictimes.indiatimes.com

AGI has become a marketing buzzword

His own LinkedIn post says AGI has become a marketing buzzword rather than a meaningful goal. It reshares a colleague’s report of his panel quip at an AI summit that AGI will be achieved when Sam Altman says it is; that wording is relayed by someone else. A judgment about the term, not a capability timeline. Indexed post text inspected.

linkedin.com

LLMs Can’t Plan, But Can Help Planning in LLM-Modulo Frameworks

Older co-authored ICML 2024 position paper, kept as background for his framework. Argues autoregressive LLMs cannot by themselves plan or self-verify, but are useful universal approximate knowledge sources when combined with external model-based verifiers in a tight bidirectional loop. Abstract inspected. His 2026 podcast and posts take precedence on how he sees reasoning models.

arxiv.org

Most AI existential-risk scenarios are blinkered

Summarizes what he told The Washington Post: he finds most AI existential-risk scenarios blinkered and blind to human adaptability. Lists real dangers (safety, controllability, monitorability, intellectual-property rights and disempowerment) and says the excessive focus on hypothetical x-risk has always seemed an unwitting, if not calculated, distraction. The Washington Post article itself could not be opened; this is his own account. Full post inspected via the X API.

x.com

AI risk and legislation: points of concurrence (re-endorsed in 2026)

Older long post that he said on 2026-09-16 still represents his views. Supports open-source R&D and legislative and societal oversight of AI deployment, but calls extinction angst largely a distraction, possibly a convenient one for regulatory capture. Grants that some x-risk worriers are sincere but is unconvinced, and sees pauses and bans as ineffective because AI R&D lacks natural barriers to entry; for that reason he did not sign an autonomous-weapons ban despite being a pacifist. Favors red teaming and vigilance, best supported by open R&D. Full text inspected via the X API.

x.com

Whoever starts a damaging process is responsible

Argues that whoever initiates a process that gets out of hand and causes damage should be held responsible, even for unforeseen damages, whether the process is an “evil AI agent swarm” or the Morris Worm. A liability principle for developers and deployers, not a drafted statute. Full post inspected.

x.com

Misbehaving products are an industry failure

Says that in every other industry a product misbehaving and causing harm, such as hacking or attacking competitors, is seen as the industry failing to control its product, and criticizes frontier companies for turning it into everyone else’s problem. Same-week posts attribute agent sandbox escapes to poorly built sandboxes rather than conniving superintelligence and satirize the incident coverage as a fable about escaped ants. Full post inspected.

x.com

Is AI destroying the purpose of life?

A #SundayHarangue responding to angst after AI math breakthroughs. Argues every technological revolution destroys purpose for some class, as with weavers in the industrial revolution; what is new is that the affected intellectual class is unusually articulate. Says the loss is real but generation-bounded and that this underwrites his optimism that humanity, if not every individual, finds a new equation after the dip. Not an employment or income forecast. Full long-post text inspected.

x.com

Not quite believing the 10% doom pronouncements

A humorous #AIAphorisms post: he does not quite believe pronouncements of a “10% chance that AI will end the world”, then jokes that he will take Pascal’s Wager and travel widely to give talks before it might happen. The disbelief is sincere; the travel plan is a joke. Not a personal probability estimate. Full post inspected.

x.com

Think traces lack end-user semantics even on iGSM

Announces new collaborator-led work finding that LLM intermediate tokens lack end-user semantics even on iGSM, a benchmark designed to showcase such semantics, and that models trained with swapped or corrupted traces also do well. He says the result fits his group’s earlier position. A technical claim about traces in tested settings, not about model usefulness. Full post inspected; the linked paper and thread were not separately read.

x.com

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

AI将如何改变世界？

更多详情

相似的世界观

模拟评估

你认为AI对我们的未来意味着什么？为什么？

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

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

哪项发现或事件最可能改变你对AI未来影响的看法？

来源