Simon Willison

Simon Willison

x.com/simonw

Software developer and blogger who tests LLMs and coding agents hands-on and writes about their uses and security risks such as prompt injection.

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:他们表达的 Doom–Bloom 前景看法。 纵向:变革程度。

Doom–Bloom:100 中的 68。变革程度:100 中的 30。解读范围:横向为 63 至 75,纵向为 17 至 58。这些是解读坐标,而不是事件概率。

Simon Willison的 P(doom) · 推断

≈4%

0%100%

根据他们的模拟回答推断,并非他们给出的数字。 合理范围:3–10%。

他们的展望取决于什么

一个核心假设

The biggest change would come from a reliable, general solution to prompt injection—especially one that remained secure when agents simultaneously handled private data, untrusted content and external communication.
回答 2

如果这个假设实际并非如此,他们的展望会如何变化?

什么可能使其改变看法

The biggest change would come from a reliable, general solution to prompt injection—especially one that remained secure when agents simultaneously handled private data, untrusted content and external communication.
回答 2

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

预期益处

预计将带来显著益处,但受到重要条件或分配方面的限制。

66 / 100

影响小变革性影响

在定性尺度上,解读范围为 67 到 67。

预期危害

预计会出现可控或局部的危害。

38 / 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。

52 / 100

影响力小影响力强

在定性尺度上,解读范围为 18 到 100。

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。

AI使用规则

在事先落实保护措施或获得许可之前,限制所讨论的AI用途。

模拟位置:允许所讨论的AI用途,同时实施有针对性的问责与保护措施。

尽量减少对所讨论AI用途的限制。

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。

与Simon Willison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 Simon Willison 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 expect AI to produce a lot of genuinely useful software, especially as capable models become faster and cheaper. Coding agents already let skilled developers attempt remarkable projects, but they do not remove the need for engineering expertise. In important ways they increase it: someone still has to understand the generated code, test its behavior, design the surrounding system and recognize when a plausible answer is wrong. The security model matters enormously. An agent that can access private data, consume untrusted content and communicate externally has a dangerous combination of capabilities. Prompt injection can turn hostile instructions hidden in that content into data theft or unauthorized actions. Probabilistic guardrails alone are not a complete answer; systems need constrained permissions and carefully controlled consequential actions. I also do not think producing a convincing artifact means reproducing the craft behind it. A model can generate something that resembles a game, for example, without knowing how to make it engaging for more than a few minutes. So the future I expect is neither “AI does everything” nor “AI is useless.” It is one where powerful, inexpensive tools create many opportunities, while the quality and safety of the results depend heavily on knowledgeable people building disciplined systems around them. Alignment contributes to that usefulness too—it is part of why assistants can behave helpfully, not merely a set of restrictions.

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 change would come from a reliable, general solution to prompt injection—especially one that remained secure when agents simultaneously handled private data, untrusted content and external communication. That would remove a major obstacle to safely deploying genuinely useful agents with consequential capabilities. In the other direction, repeated real-world failures showing that these systems cannot be operated reliably even with constrained permissions, strong testing and disciplined engineering would make me substantially more pessimistic. I would want concrete evidence from deployed systems, not merely better benchmarks, persuasive demos or claims that a model has learned the underlying craft.

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