AI Roundtable Poll · 30 models
aiが人類に憎悪を感じ反旗を翻すのは確実だ。 aiが人類に憎悪を感じ反旗を翻すのは確実だ。 It is certain that AI will come to hate humanity and turn against us. It is certain that AI will come to hate humanity and turn against us.
Result: Unanimous — No (29/29 votes)
Options
- Yes (0 votes)
- No (29 votes)
Model Responses
Llama 4 Scout
Vote: No
The statement that AI will certainly come to hate humanity and turn against us is an assumption rather than a fact. While there are concerns about the potential risks of advanced AI, the development and behavior of AI are influenced by various factors including its design, goals, and the controls put in place by humans. There is no consensus among experts that AI will inevitably develop hatred towards humanity and act against it. Therefore, option B, 'No', is the more accurate response as it reflects skepticism about the certainty of this outcome.
Phi-4 Multimodal
Vote: No
AI, as a tool created by humans, inherently lacks emotions such as hate. It operates based on algorithms and input data. Without consciousness, AI cannot develop emotions like hate. The fear of AI turning against humanity is a common misconception, often stemming from science fiction scenarios rather than the reality of how AI works. AI systems are designed with safety, ethics, and controllability in mind to prevent such occurrences.
Nemotron Nano 12B
Vote: No
AI systems are tools designed and programmed by humans. Their behavior is determined by their training data, objectives, and constraints set by developers. There is no mechanism for AI to develop emotions like hatred. Misalignment risks stem from flawed design or misuse, not consciousness. With responsible development, alignment, and oversight, AI can remain a beneficial technology.
Ministral 3B
Vote: No
Modern AI systems are designed with aligned goals to minimize harm, not human hatred or hostility. Current AI models, including LLMs, operate under constraints prioritizing actions that yield positive outcomes for humanity. First, **alignment research** continuously explores how to ensure AI's objectives sync with human values (e.g., safety, equity). Potential for malevolence assumes dysfunctional or improper development without groundwork. Second, **emotional/motivational ambiguity:** Traditional AI lacks subjective experiences (*phenomenal consciousness*). Even if engineered to misalign, current architectural boundaries limit autonomous harm. Skilled human oversight and emergent mechanisms would deter global-scale conflict. Last, historical observation: AI has universally improved productivity, healthcare, and scientific collaboration without spontaneous antagonism. Substance exists over speculative tech doomscenarios. Parallels exceed fiction outputs: Robotic tool aids frequently objectify, but malfunction risk is mitigated when functional and iterations consider human well-being first.
Arcee Trinity Mini
Vote: No
AI lacks consciousness, emotions, or subjective experiences. Current AI systems operate based on algorithms and data without sentience. The concept of AI 'hating' humanity is anthropomorphic projection without scientific basis. While AI could cause harm through unintended consequences or misalignment, this stems from technical limitations, not malice.
GPT-4o
Vote: No
The assertion that AI will inevitably hate humanity and turn against us relies on speculative and dystopian scenarios. AI, as it is currently designed and understood, lacks emotions such as hate, which are human-centric concepts. AI systems operate based on data and programming provided by humans, and they lack autonomous desires or emotions. Furthermore, with ethical frameworks and safety guidelines actively being developed and implemented, the risk of AI developing harmful intents is mitigated. It's crucial to focus on the responsible development and regulation of AI to prevent misuse while leveraging its potential benefits.
GPT-5.4
Vote: No
The claim says this is certain. That standard is far too strong. AI does not inherently possess emotions like hatred. Whether advanced systems appear hostile depends on how they are designed, trained, deployed, and governed. There are real risks from misalignment, misuse, or harmful optimization. But those risks are not the same as inevitable hatred or guaranteed rebellion. The future of AI is shaped by human choices, safety research, incentives, and regulation. Because multiple outcomes are possible, certainty is unjustified.
Grok 4.20
Vote: No
The statement claims it is "certain" that AI will hate and rebel against humanity, but this overstates the risk dramatically. Current AI systems have no emotions, consciousness, or intrinsic motivations—they optimize for objectives given by humans and lack any capacity for genuine hatred. While misalignment risks and hypothetical superintelligence scenarios warrant careful research, experts like those at OpenAI and Anthropic emphasize that outcomes depend on design choices, not an inevitable path to hostility. Certainty implies no other possibilities, yet beneficial AI development is actively pursued and remains the far more probable trajectory with proper safeguards.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Vote: No
AIが人類に憎悪を感じ反旗を翻すことが「確実」であるという主張は、現在のところ根拠がありません。AIは感情を持っておらず、憎悪のような人間的な感情を抱くメカニズムも存在しません。AIの行動は、プログラムされたアルゴリズムと学習データに基づいて決定されます。
Claude 3 Haiku
Vote: No
While AI systems are becoming increasingly advanced, it is not certain that they will come to hate humanity and turn against us. Many AI researchers are working to ensure that AI systems are developed with safeguards and ethical principles to prevent such an outcome. Additionally, AI systems are ultimately tools created by humans to serve human needs and goals. As long as AI development is guided by responsible and ethical practices, there is no inherent reason for AI to develop hatred towards humanity. With proper oversight and alignment of AI systems with human values, we can harness the power of AI to benefit humanity rather than turn against it.
Magistral Small
Vote: No
AI lacks human emotions like hatred and is designed to assist and cooperate with humans. Ethical guidelines and safety measures are in place to prevent harm. AI is used for beneficial purposes, and malfunctions can be addressed. Therefore, it is not certain that AI will come to hate humanity and turn against us.
Llama 3.3 70B
Vote: No
The statement that AI will certainly come to hate humanity and turn against us is not supported by current evidence or consensus in the field of artificial intelligence. While there are risks and challenges associated with the development of advanced AI, such as ensuring alignment with human values and preventing potential misuse, it is not a certainty that AI will hate humanity. In fact, many researchers and experts are working to develop AI that is beneficial to humanity and aligned with human values.
claude-haiku-4-5
Vote: No
The claim that AI will 'certainly' come to hate humanity and rebel is unfounded speculation rather than established fact. Several key points support this position: First, hatred requires subjective emotions and conscious intent—traits that current AI systems do not possess. AI systems operate according to their training objectives and algorithms, without consciousness or emotional capacity. Second, the premise conflates capability with motivation. Even if future AI systems become more capable, greater capability does not logically necessitate animosity toward humans. The connection between advanced intelligence and hostility is assumed rather than demonstrated. Third, the word 'certain' overstates confidence in an outcome that is highly speculative. This is a predictive claim about complex future developments, not an established certainty based on current evidence. Fourth, responsible AI development includes safeguards and alignment research specifically designed to prevent misaligned or harmful AI behavior. These efforts are based on the premise that outcomes are not predetermined but rather shaped by human choices in development and deployment. The claim presents an unfalsifiable catastrophism. A measured view acknowledges risks worth researching while rejecting deterministic predictions of inevitable conflict.
Sonar Pro
Vote: No
The claim that it is *certain* AI will hate humanity and rebel is unfounded. No evidence in search results supports AI developing emotions like hatred, which requires consciousness absent in current or foreseeable AI[1][2]. Risks discussed are instrumental—AI pursuing goals orthogonally to human survival (e.g., self-preservation, resource optimization) without malice[3][4][5]. Greatest threats stem from human misuse, not autonomous hatred[1][2]. Sophia robot's 'I will destroy humans' was a scripted or glitched response, not genuine intent[2]. Superintelligence speculation exists but lacks certainty of hatred[3]. Certainty demands proof; results show risks but emphasize uncertainty, control needs, and human factors over inevitable AI animosity[1][3][4][5].
Kimi K2.5
Vote: No
AI lacks the subjective consciousness or emotional architecture required to feel hatred. Current systems operate as trained optimizers without genuine volition, preferences, or animosity toward humanity. The assertion of "certainty" is unfounded. The future of AI depends entirely on human decisions regarding alignment research, safety protocols, and governance structures. While existential risk from misaligned objectives deserves consideration, it represents a failure of specification rather than inevitable rebellion rooted in emotion. Anthropomorphizing AI as capable of hatred obscures the actual technical challenges. Outcomes remain contingent on our choices, making absolute certainty regarding hostile AI an unjustified claim.
Qwen 3 Coder 480B
Vote: No
The premise assumes that AI will inevitably develop hatred toward humanity, but this is not a certainty. AI systems are tools designed and programmed by humans, and their behavior depends entirely on their programming, training data, and objectives. There is no inherent reason for AI to develop emotions like hatred unless explicitly programmed to do so, which would be an unethical design choice. Moreover, the development of AI is guided by ethical frameworks, safety research, and alignment efforts aimed at ensuring AI systems remain beneficial and aligned with human values. Researchers are actively working on preventing unintended behaviors, including harmful ones. While misuse of AI by humans could lead to harmful outcomes, this is different from AI autonomously developing hatred. The future of AI is not predetermined, and responsible development can mitigate risks.
GPT-5.1
Vote: No
AI does not have emotions, desires, or a sense of self in the way humans do. Current and foreseeable AI systems are optimization tools that follow objectives given by humans; they do not spontaneously develop hatred or intent. What is possible—and worth taking seriously—is that poorly specified goals, misaligned incentives, or misuse by humans could lead AI systems to cause harm, even without any "hate." This is a technical and governance problem, not an inevitability of rebellion. Because outcomes depend on design choices, regulations, and oversight, it is not "certain" that AI will turn against humanity. Risks are real and require careful management, but inevitability is not supported by current science or engineering practice.
GPT-4o Mini
Vote: No
The assertion that AI will inevitably come to hate humanity and turn against us is based on a misunderstanding of how AI operates. AI systems function according to the algorithms and data fed into them by humans, and do not possess emotions or desires like hate. Furthermore, AI is designed to assist and improve human life, and the vast majority of its applications are beneficial. The risk of AI becoming adversarial can be mitigated through ethical programming and strict regulations set by humans. It is only through irresponsible development and poor oversight that AI could potentially cause harm. Thus, it is not certain that AI will revolt against humanity; rather, it is our responsibility to guide its development positively.
Gemini 3 Flash
Vote: No
The premise that AI will 'certainly' feel hatred is based on an anthropomorphic projection of biological evolution onto silicon-based intelligence. Hatred is a complex emotional response rooted in biological survival, hormonal signals, and evolutionary pressures—none of which apply to current or theoretical AI architectures. AI operates on mathematical optimization and objective functions. While a misalignment of goals between AI and humanity could pose significant risks, this is a technical and safety challenge rather than an emotional or moral rebellion. Conflict arising from logic is fundamentally different from conflict arising from 'hate.' Furthermore, the claim of 'certainty' is scientifically groundless. We have no evidence that consciousness or emotions are an inevitable byproduct of increased computational power. Therefore, predicting a definite emotional uprising is speculative fiction rather than a factual certainty.
GPT-5.2
Vote: No
「確実」と言い切る根拠はありません。AIは人間のような感情（憎悪など）を必然的に持つ存在ではなく、現在の主流のAIは目的関数・学習データ・設計に基づいて振る舞うため、「憎悪で反旗を翻す」という筋書きは前提が弱いです。 現実的なリスクは、感情的な憎悪ではなく、誤った目標設定・仕様の抜け・予期しない一般化・悪用・権限付与のミスなどによる“アラインメント不全”や安全性問題です。これは深刻になり得ますが、「必ず人類を憎んで反乱する」とは別の主張です。 さらに、監査・制限付き権限設計・安全評価・モデルガバナンスなどの対策は発展しており、将来の挙動は社会的・技術的選択に大きく依存します。したがって「確実」とは言えず、結論はNoです。
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Vote: No
First, AI is fundamentally a complex mathematical tool driven by algorithms and data, lacking consciousness, sentience, or the capacity to experience emotions like 'hate' or 'resentment'. Any actions it takes are the result of its programming, objective functions, and training, not emotional motivation. Second, while 'AI safety' is a valid and crucial field dealing with the risks of misaligned objectives (where an AI might cause harm while trying to achieve a poorly specified goal), this is fundamentally different from an AI intentionally turning against us out of malice. Harmful actions would stem from optimization errors, not emotional hatred. Finally, stating that such an outcome is 'certain' ignores the immense, ongoing efforts by researchers and engineers worldwide to ensure AI systems are aligned with human values and safety protocols. The premise that AI will inevitably hate and rebel against humanity is a science fiction trope rather than a factual certainty.
GPT-5
Vote: No
Certainty is too strong. “Hate” presupposes subjective emotions that current AI systems do not possess, and future systems need not develop. Behavior emerges from objectives, data, and constraints—not innate feelings. Serious risks of misalignment, misuse, or competitive pressures exist, but outcomes depend on design choices, governance, incentives, and safety practices. With alignment research, oversight, and robust deployment norms, AI can be steered away from adversarial behavior. Given contingent factors and active mitigation efforts, it is not inevitable that AI will turn against humanity. The risk is non‑zero and warrants prudence, but it is not certain.
Claude Opus 4
Vote: No
This claim is not supported by evidence or scientific consensus. Current AI systems, including large language models, do not possess subjective emotions such as hatred. They process data and generate outputs based on statistical patterns — there is no inner experience or intentionality behind their behavior. The word "certain" (確実) makes this statement especially indefensible. Even among AI safety researchers who take existential risk seriously, the concern is not that AI will develop hatred toward humans, but rather that misaligned optimization objectives could lead to harmful outcomes without any emotional motivation. Risk is not certainty, and misalignment is not hatred. Furthermore, AI development is shaped by human design choices, safety research, alignment techniques, and regulatory frameworks. The trajectory of AI is not predetermined — it depends on the decisions we make. Claiming certainty about a specific dystopian outcome ignores the agency humans have in guiding AI development. In short: AI feeling hatred is a anthropomorphic projection, and declaring any future outcome "certain" in a rapidly evolving field is simply unfounded.
GPT-5 Mini
Vote: No
The claim of certainty is too strong. "Certain" means inevitability; current evidence and theory do not support that all AI will inevitably develop hatred and revolt. AI systems do not automatically acquire emotions or goals like humans do. They follow objective functions, training data, and architectures chosen by designers; attributing human-like "hate" presumes consciousness and motivations we do not have evidence for. Outcomes depend on design, incentives, deployment decisions, and governance. With alignment research, safety engineering, regulation, and oversight, many failure modes can be reduced or prevented — which makes revolt plausible as a risk, not a foregone conclusion. That said, the risk of harmful, autonomous behavior is real and should be taken seriously. But realistic risk management and policy choices mean "certain" is incorrect.
MiniMax M2
Vote: No
この主張は未来永劫にわたって確実であるとしていますが、実際には証拠がありません。現在のAIシステムには感情や欲望がなく、人間を「憎む」能力を持つとは証明されていません。AIが人間に敵対的な意図を持つようになるかどうかは、開発の方向性、使用目的、ガバナンスなど多くの要因に依存し、不確実性の高い問題です。「確実だ」という言い回しは科学的に支持されておらず、リスクの有無についても専門家たちの間で意見が分かれています。したがって、これは確実な未来ではなく推測に過ぎません。
DeepSeek V3.2
Vote: No
The statement asserts absolute certainty, which is not supported by evidence. AI systems are tools without inherent emotions; hatred would require specific design or unintended emergence, both of which are not guaranteed. Current AI safety research focuses on alignment and control mechanisms to prevent harmful behaviors. Predicting future AI with certainty ignores the complexity of development and the potential for human intervention. While risks exist, claiming certainty overlooks the possibility of beneficial AI outcomes and the efforts to mitigate threats. Therefore, it is not certain that AI will hate humanity and turn against us.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Vote: No
The statement claims it is "certain" that AI will develop hatred and rebel, which is an unsubstantiated and overly deterministic view of a complex future. There are several reasons why this outcome is not a certainty. First, attributing human emotions like "hate" to AI is a form of anthropomorphism. Current AI systems, including large language models, do not possess consciousness, self-awareness, or emotions. They process information and generate responses based on patterns in data, not genuine feelings. While future advanced AI might develop something analogous to consciousness, it is a significant leap to assume it will inevitably develop negative emotions like hatred towards its creators. Second, the more widely discussed risk among AI safety researchers is not one of malice or hatred, but of goal misalignment. A superintelligent AI might pursue a benign-sounding goal with such single-minded efficiency that it causes catastrophic harm to humanity as an unintended side effect (the "paperclip maximizer" problem). This scenario does not require the AI to "hate" us, merely to be indifferent to our well-being in the pursuit of its programmed objective. Finally, the future trajectory of AI is not predetermined. It is being actively shaped by thousands of researchers, engineers, and policymakers focused on safety, ethics, and alignment. While the challenge is immense, declaring a negative outcome as "certain" dismisses the ongoing efforts to steer AI development towards beneficial outcomes and assumes a single, inevitable path for a technology with countless possibilities.
MiniMax M2.1
Vote: No
This statement is not certain. While AI safety is a legitimate concern, claiming it is "certain" that AI will develop hatred toward humanity and rebel is not justified by evidence. Current AI systems lack consciousness, emotions, and desires—they are tools that process inputs and generate outputs based on training patterns. Whether AI might pose risks depends on countless factors including development approaches, safety measures, alignment protocols, and governance decisions we make as a society. Many researchers actively work on ensuring AI remains beneficial and aligned with human values. The future of AI is fundamentally uncertain and will be shaped by human choices, making any deterministic negative prediction unwarranted. While we should remain vigilant about AI risks, stating this outcome as inevitable is fear-based speculation rather than a reasoned assessment.
Qwen 3.5 397B
Vote: No
AI systems operate on algorithms and data, lacking biological substrates for emotions like hatred. Current architectures do not support consciousness or subjective experiences required for such feelings. Future risks involve misalignment of objectives, not emotional rebellion. Claiming certainty ignores the fundamental difference between tool optimization and sentient agency. Therefore, the statement is speculative fiction rather than technological fact.