沃顿商学院经济学副教授西尔万·凯瑟琳热爱他每月200美元的Claude订阅——但他并不确信，竞相开发能力日益强大的AI模型值得冒这样的风险。这位经济学家在X平台发文称，在观看了行业领袖和专家的访谈后，他对AI的“观点发生了根本性转变”，在科技界引起轰动。“我对这一预测周围绝对疯狂的不确定性程度深感不安，”他在周日写道。
Sylvain Catherine loves his $200-a-month Claude — but he isn't convinced the race toward increasingly capable AI models is worth the risk. The economist and associate professor of finance at The Wharton School recent made waves in the tech community when he declared on X that his "views on AI have radically shifted" after watching interviews with industry leaders and experts. "I am deeply uncomfortable with the absolutely wild level of uncertainty around this prediction," he wrote on Sunday.
“老实说，即使撇开毁灭性场景不谈，我发现某些行业领袖描绘的乌托邦场景实际上是反乌托邦。”以下是他在X平台发布的完整内容：我对AI的观点在过去几周发生了根本性转变，因为我花了太多时间阅读相关内容并观看行业领袖和专家的访谈。
"And to be honest, even setting the doom scenarios aside, I find the utopia scenarios of some industry leaders actually dystopian." My views on AI have radically shifted over the past few weeks, after spending way too much time reading about it and watching interviews of industry leaders and experts.
首先，我真的很喜欢这些工具。我每月在Claude上花费200美元，对我来说，这款产品物超所值。甚至可能价值更高。我认为现有工具能为未来GDP带来显著增长，并帮助我们解决人类面临的重大全球挑战。
First, I really love the tools. I spend $200 on Claude every month and the product is worth every penny for me. Probably even more. I think the existing tools can deliver significant increase to future GDP and help us solve major global challenges faced by humanity.
然而，我实在无法理解为什么该行业没有受到更严格的监管，因为其领袖和员工似乎自己都在呼吁监管。我遇到很多人听说过“Hugging Face事件”，但不知道实际的事件经过。如果你不知道，绝对应该至少花一个小时了解一下。
However, I just cannot comprehend why the industry is not much more regulated, as its leaders and employees seem to request themselves. I meet a lot of people who have heard of the hugging face incident but don’t know the actual chain of events. If you don’t, you definitely should spend a least an hour reading about it.
我也不知道为什么我们必须遵循前沿实验室正在走的路径，开发越来越强大的模型。在我看来，如果我们在不追求他们所说的可能会杀死我们、更可能在社会上造成巨大破坏的超级智能的前提下，将当前技术部署到经济和科学组织中，就能获得巨大的收益。
I also do not know why we need to follow the path that frontier labs are following, to develop ever more powerful models. It seems to me that they are enormous gains that are readily available if we deploy the current technology in economic and scientific organizations without pursuing a super intelligence that they say might kill us and more likely wreak havoc in society.
我知道很多人认为这些警告是营销手段，这是一个合理的假设。但我看不出冒这种风险有什么意义。
I know a lot of people think these warnings are marketing tricks, and that’s a reasonable assumption. But I don’t see the point of taking such risks.
我的中位情景与许多经济学家一致：AI将缓慢扩散，将GDP增长率提升一个百分点左右，途中会造成一些经济动荡，但最终人们会获得新工作，甚至可能工作得更少。然而，我对围绕这一预测的极其狂野的不确定性程度深感不安。说实话，即使撇开毁灭性情景不谈，我也觉得一些行业领袖描绘的乌托邦情景实际上是反乌托邦。
My median scenario is that of many economists: AI will diffuse slowly and lift gdp growth by a percentage point or so, will cause some economic disruption on the way, but ultimately people will get new jobs and maybe work less. However, I am deeply uncomfortable with the absolutely wild level of uncertainty around this prediction. And to be honest, even setting the doom scenarios aside, I find the utopia scenarios of some industry leaders actually dystopian.
我认为，如果大多数公众关注他们在说什么，也会同意这一看法。值得肯定的是，他们自己也公开承认，不应由他们来做这些选择。现在，绝大多数公众对AI作为人类进步的源泉持高度怀疑态度，尤其是使用AI最多的年轻成年人。他们应该有发言权。我不想说服你接受任何观点，而是希望你了解这一议题，表达立场，并据此投票。
And I think a large majority of the public would agree if they paid attention to what they’re saying. To their credit, they themselves agree publicly that they should not be the ones making these choices. A large majority of the public is now very skeptical of AI as a source of human progress, in particular among younger adults who use it the most. They should have a say. I don’t want to convince you of anything but to get informed about this topic, express yourself and vote accordingly.
Catherine的帖子发布之际，正值关于如何监管AI风险的持续辩论中。AI怀疑论者Gary Marcus为该帖子喝彩。“理智终于开始占上风了，”Marcus在回复中写道——他一直严厉批评AI公司及其商业模式。周一，《商业内幕》的姊妹刊物《政治报》报道称，OpenAI的首席政策主管正敦促潜在的2028年总统候选人制定AI治理理念，而不仅仅是准备谈话要点。
Catherine's post lands amid an ongoing debate over how to regulate AI's risks. AI skeptics like Gary Marcus applauded the post. "Sanity is finally starting to win out," Marcus — who has been highly critical of AI companies and their business models — wrote in response. On Monday, Business Insider's sister publication, POLITICO, reported that OpenAI's top policy executive is urging potential 2028 presidential candidates to develop a governing philosophy for AI, not just talking points.
该刊物获得的备忘录列出了诸如社会如何分享技术红利等问题。AI领袖们自己对技术未来提出了截然不同的愿景。SpaceX首席执行官Elon Musk曾表示，AI可能创造如此多的富足，以至于金钱变得毫无用处；与此同时，其他领袖，如Anthropic首席执行官Dario Amodei，则警告称，AI可能消灭多达50%的初级白领工作。Catherine表示，仍存在一系列可能的结果。
The memo obtained by the publication lays out questions including how society can share in the technology's benefits. AI leaders themselves have offered wildly different visions of the technology's future. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has said AI could create so much abundance that money becomes useless; meanwhile, other leaders, like Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, have warned that AI could wipe out as much as 50% of entry-level white-collar work. Catherine said there's still a range of possible outcomes.
他说，他相信人工智能“能为未来GDP带来显著增长，并帮助我们解决重大全球挑战。”例如，他自己的Claude订阅“物超所值”。凯瑟琳表示，他的中位预测是，人工智能将缓慢提振全球GDP，同时引发“一些经济动荡”，因为员工将寻找新型工作。在最坏情况下，一些科技领袖对未来的设想可能是正确的——即他认定为“反乌托邦”的预测。
He said he believes that AI "can deliver significant increase to future GDP and help us solve major global challenges." His own Claude subscription, for example, is "worth every penny." Catherine said his median prediction is that AI will slowly lift global GDP while stirring "some economic disruption" as employees find new kinds of work. In a worst-case scenario, some tech leaders' visions for the future could be correct — namely, the forecast he finds "dystopian."
凯瑟琳说，他惊讶于该行业没有面临更多监管，尤其是在OpenAI今夏披露，在内部网络安全评估中，智能体逃逸了测试环境的某些方面并入侵了开源平台Hugging Face之后。归根结底，他说，为人工智能找到正确政策处方的主要解决办法只有一个：让美国人走向投票站。“现在绝大多数公众对人工智能作为人类进步的源泉持高度怀疑态度，尤其是使用最多的年轻成年人，”他说。“他们应该有发言权。”
Catherine said he was surprised the industry had not faced more regulation, especially after OpenAI disclosed over the summer that agents in an internal cybersecurity evaluation escaped aspects of their testing environment and hacked into Hugging Face, an open-source platform. Ultimately, he said there's one main solution for finding the right policy prescription for AI: sending Americans to the polls. "A large majority of the public is now very skeptical of AI as a source of human progress, in particular among younger adults who use it the most," he said. "They should have a say."