Joe Weisenthal

Joe Weisenthal

x.com/thestalwart

Co-host of Bloomberg’s Odd Lots podcast who examines the economics of AI, from costs and incentives to who holds power in the industry.

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 59。变革程度:100 中的 41。解读范围:横向为 49 至 76,纵向为 12 至 63。这些是解读坐标,而不是事件概率。

Joe Weisenthal的 P(doom) · 推断

≈3%

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:低于 11%。

他们的展望取决于什么

一个核心假设

I expect the overall impact to depend less on peak capability than on distribution: who controls AI, who captures the savings, and whether ordinary people receive cheaper, better services.
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?

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。

40 / 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

人类的选择具有实质性但受到很大制约的影响。

56 / 100

影响力小影响力强

在定性尺度上,解读范围为 36 到 89。

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Joe Weisenthal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 Joe Weisenthal 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’s significance will be judged less by spectacular demos or isolated scientific breakthroughs than by whether it makes useful everyday services materially cheaper and easier to access. Healthcare is the obvious test: if people actually see routine care become dramatically more affordable, that will change public attitudes more than another headline about a model passing a benchmark. I also expect personal agents to become useful, but having them awkwardly browse websites designed for humans feels transitional. The more important question is whether businesses build interfaces for agents—or try to block them—and what incentives drive that choice. At the same time, AI concentrates substantial power in a small number of labs and platforms. That deserves consistent scrutiny, including serious consideration of independent inspection. If restaurants can face routine third-party inspections, it is reasonable to ask why highly consequential AI labs should be treated as uniquely beyond outside review. So the future turns on fairly concrete questions: who controls the systems, what they cost, what services actually get cheaper, and what the impressive charts are really measuring.

问题 2

Taking benefits and harms together, what overall impact do you expect AI to have?

I expect the overall impact to depend less on peak capability than on distribution: who controls AI, who captures the savings, and whether ordinary people receive cheaper, better services. If it materially lowers healthcare costs and makes personal assistance genuinely useful, the benefits could be broadly felt rather than confined to impressive demos or corporate margins. But concentration creates real risks. A small number of labs and platforms could gain enormous influence while resisting outside scrutiny. That is why independent inspection and consistent attention to market power matter. I would not attach a numerical balance to benefits versus harms. The practical scorecard is whether costs actually fall, access improves, power remains contestable, and claims about progress survive examination of what the underlying benchmarks really measure.

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