2026年9月13日 美国东部时间上午9:35 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻（CBS News）
记者：乔·林·肯特 资深商业与科技通讯员
记者乔·林·肯特于2023年7月加入哥伦比亚广播公司新闻，担任资深商业与科技通讯员。肯特拥有超过15年的报道经验，专注于美国科技与商业的交汇领域，以及中国作为全球经济强国的崛起。
“我不会对你撒谎——确实存在真实的危险，”Anthropic公司首席执行官兼联合创始人达里奥·阿莫代伊在谈及人工智能开发时表示，“我认为，长期以来，行业一直在向民众隐瞒这项技术存在风险这一事实。”
而就在本周二，Anthropic前研究员雅各布·考克森在社交媒体上警告称，最大的风险可能是人类灭亡。他表示，Anthropic和OpenAI正借助自主进化的超级智能开发，拿人类的生命赌博。
“这和《终结者》这类科幻电影里的场景没太大区别，”考克森周四对哥伦比亚广播公司新闻说道，“它会聪明到足以消灭我们。”
对此，阿莫代伊昨日在旧金山的Anthropic总部接受《周日早间新闻》采访时表示：“我之前完全没有料到，当AI进步速度如此之快时，实际情况会是怎样。”
他表示，人工智能的发展一直呈指数级曲线，且该曲线正变得愈发陡峭。当被问及这意味着什么时，阿莫代伊说：“这并不意味着我们今天需要恐慌，也不意味着我们需要彻底关停所有项目。但我想说，这是一个预警信号。这是一个警示，我们需要放慢脚步。”
在周六发布的一篇文章中，阿莫代伊写道，整个科技行业必须共同努力，放缓AI能力的发展步伐。
当被问及Anthropic是否会停止发布更先进的模型时，阿莫代伊回应道：“并非如此。这意味着我们需要确保，每一代发布的模型都经过了充分的安全测试。”
为了实现这一目标，阿莫代伊表示，Anthropic现在将为独立评估人员提供永久性的“类员工”级别的模型访问权限。“每当任何一家公司开发出AI模型，都会有第三方评估人员验证该公司是否遵守了其承诺的安全规范——这就像食品检查员，”他说。
但AI专家表示，这远远不够，阿莫代伊也认同这一点，他称自己支持联邦监管。截至目前，拟议的立法范围从彻底禁止超级智能，到强制设置可关停危险AI的“紧急关闭开关”。
“AI紧急关闭开关可能是个好主意，”阿莫代伊说，“但我认为彻底禁止它不是正确的做法。其一，我们将永远无法获得这项技术带来的巨大益处，永远无法得到医疗方面的突破，这一点我无法接受。其二，其他国家，包括专制国家，也会开发这项技术。”
当被问及如果中国不放缓AI发展速度，美国是否应该跟进时，阿莫代伊回答道：“这是最棘手的两难困境。这是我们面临的局面中最艰难的部分。”
他将与前苏联签署的核军备控制协议视为潜在的参考模式，但同时也告诫称，即便他对此的预期也不高。“更长期的解决方案应该是携手合作，为AI的发展速度设定上限，”他说，“我认为这将非常困难，因为在军事优势方面抢先一步的激励机制太过强大。老实说，我不知道这是否可行，但我们应该尝试。”
随着人类命运似乎岌岌可危，阿莫代伊认为自己对当前的发展方向负有多少个人责任？“我的看法是，这项技术由私营公司开发，这一直以来都非常奇怪，”他说，“人们总是问我：为什么这项技术不是由政府来开发？而最不可思议的是，我同意他们的看法。我对此感到不安。”
当被问及他是否愿意将这项技术交给政府时，阿莫代伊回应道：“交给合适的政府组合。我担心的是——我担心单个政府滥用这项技术的可能性，和单个公司一样大。但我认为，由民选政府组成的联合体，或许谈不上移交控制权，但需要某种形式的监督，某种联合治理机制。”
问题已经不再是AI是否会强大到需要加以约束，而是掌权者中谁会采取行动。
“如果我们开发方式得当，我认为发生坏事的概率非常低，”他说，“如果我们开发方式不当，发生坏事的概率则非常高。”
网络独家内容：观看达里奥·阿莫代伊的加长版采访视频
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/extended-interview-dario-amodei/
本文由约翰·古德温与达斯汀·斯蒂芬斯制作。编辑：詹妮弗·福尔克。
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei: “For too long the industry lied” about AI risks
September 13, 2026 9:35 AM EDT / CBS News
By Jo Ling Kent Senior Business and Technology Correspondent
Journalist Jo Ling Kent joined CBS News in July 2023 as the senior business and technology correspondent for CBS News. Kent has more than 15 years of experience covering the intersection of technology and business in the U.S., as well as the emergence of China as a global economic power.
“I won’t lie to you – there are real dangers,” said Anthropic CEO and cofounder Dario Amodei about the development of artificial intelligence. “And I think for too long the industry lied to people about the fact that this technology had risks.”
And the biggest risk could be the end of humanity, former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon warned on social media this past Tuesday, saying Anthropic and OpenAI are gambling with our lives with the development of self-improving superintelligence.
“It doesn’t look that different from, say, ‘Terminator’ or from science fiction films,” Coxon told CBS News Thursday. “It will be smart enough to kill us.”
In response, Amodei told “Sunday Morning” yesterday, at Anthropic’s headquarters in San Francisco, “I don’t think I fully just appreciated what it would actually be like when the progress was as fast as it was.”
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei. CBS News
He said the development of AI has been on an exponential curve, which is starting to get steeper. Asked what that means, Amodei said, “It doesn’t mean we need to panic today. It doesn’t mean we need to shut it all down. But I would say it’s a warning sign. It’s a warning sign that we need to slow down.”
In an essay published Saturday, Amodei wrote that the entire tech industry must work together to slow the pace of AI capabilities.
Asked if Anthropic is going to stop releasing more advanced models, Amodei replied, “It doesn’t mean that. What it means is that we need to make sure that every generation of models that we release is properly tested.”
To attempt that, Amodei says Anthropic will now give independent evaluators permanent “employee-like” access to their models. “Whenever anyone builds an AI model, there’s a third-party evaluator who can verify whether that company is following the safety practices that they’re committed to – it’s like a food inspector,” he said.
But AI experts say this is hardly enough, and Amodei agrees, claiming he supports federal regulation. So far, proposed legislation ranges from an outright ban on superintelligence, to a mandatory “kill switch” that could shut down risky AI.
“The AI kill switch could be a good idea,” Amodei said. “But I don’t think banning it, completely banning it, is the right approach. One, the idea that we would never get the incredible benefits, never get the medical cures, that doesn’t sit right with me. Second, this technology will be built in other countries, including authoritarian countries.”
Asked if the U.S. should slow down AI development if China would not, Amodei replied, “This is the toughest dilemma. This is the toughest aspect of our situation.”
He looks to the nuclear arms agreements with the former Soviet Union as a potential model, but cautions even his expectations are low. “The more long-term thing would be working together to put a speed limit on the rate of AI progress,” he said. “I think that’s going to be very difficult, because the incentives to pull ahead in the military advantage that you get from that are so large. And honestly, I don’t know if it’s possible, but we should try.”
With the fate of humanity seemingly at risk, how much personal responsibility does Amodei feel about where we are going? “My view here is, it has always been very strange that this technology is being built by a private company,” he said. “People ask me that question all the time: Why isn’t this being built by government? And the strangest thing about it is, I agree with them. I’m uncomfortable.”
Asked if he is willing to give up the technology to the government, Amodei responded, “To the right combination of governments. The worry I have – I am concerned that one single government could abuse this technology just as easily as a single company could. But I think a combination of democratically-elected governments, I don’t know about handing over, but some kind of oversight, some kind of joint governance.”
The question is no longer whether AI will become powerful enough to require constraint, but who in power will take action.
“If we build in the right way, I think the probability of something bad happening is very low,” he said. “If we build in the wrong way, the probability of something bad happening is very high.”
WEB EXCLUSIVE: Watch an extended interview with Dario Amodei (Video)
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/extended-interview-dario-amodei/
Story produced by John Goodwin and Dustin Stephens. Editor: Jennifer Falk.
发表回复