Superagency Spectrum Test (SST)

This is an assessment based on the concepts introduced by Reid Hoffman in his book titled superagency and has been developed by me (Sandeep Das), in collaboration with Grok, an AI created by xAI , on 22nd March 2025, at 08:05 AM PDT.

Superagency Spectrum

Reid Hoffman's book Superagency introduces four AI Adoption personas which I prefer to call, the Superagency Spectrum: Doomers, Gloomers, Zoomers, and Bloomers, each with distinct views on AI's future.

Research suggests Doomers fear existential risks from AI, like super intelligent systems harming humanity, while Gloomers focus on near-term issues like job losses and advocate for strict regulation. The evidence leans toward Zoomers being optimistic, favoring rapid innovation with minimal regulation, and Bloomers balancing optimism with broad engagement and adaptive development. There’s some debate on how these traits influence AI policy, with Bloomers, like Hoffman, advocating for inclusive growth, while Doomers and Gloomers push for caution.

Overview of Superagency Spectrum

Reid Hoffman's Superagency outlines four personas reflecting different attitudes toward AI, which can help us understand the diverse perspectives shaping its development. These traits—Doomers, Gloomers, Zoomers, and Bloomers—offer a framework for discussing AI's potential and risks.

Doomers: The Existential Worriers Doomers are concerned with long-term, catastrophic scenarios where AI, especially super intelligent systems, might become misaligned with human values and pose an existential threat, potentially leading to humanity's destruction.

Gloomers: The Near-Term Critics, Gloomers focus on immediate risks, such as job displacement, disinformation, and bias amplification, and are critical of both AI and Doomers. They advocate for strict, top-down regulation to address these issues.

Zoomers: The Innovation Enthusiasts, Zoomers are optimistic about AI's ability to drive productivity and innovation. They prefer minimal regulation, believing developers should have autonomy to innovate quickly, often skeptical of measures that might slow progress.

Bloomers: The Balanced Optimists, Bloomers, like Hoffman, share Zoomers' optimism but emphasize broad participation and iterative development. They see AI as a tool for enhancing human agency, advocating for inclusive, adaptive approaches and real-world testing, open to regulation but favoring engagement.

Detailed Descriptions of Each Persona

To provide a thorough analysis, here’s a table summarizing each persona, followed by additional context:

Doomers: Their fear centers on scenarios like AI deciding to destroy humanity, keeping a few for menial tasks, as seen in the humorous reference to "tech bros doing vacuuming for Roombas." This reflects a deep concern for alignment, with implications for AI safety research.

Gloomers: Their critique of Doomers suggests the latter's focus distracts from pressing issues, like economic displacement, which they see as more immediate. This aligns with calls for regulatory bodies to oversee AI deployment, potentially slowing innovation but addressing equity.

Zoomers: Their push for a "clear runway" indicates a belief in market-driven solutions, where innovation naturally mitigates risks. This can lead to tensions with regulatory bodies, as seen in debates over AI ethics and speed.

Bloomers: View of AI as transformative, akin to agriculture, requiring planting, observing, and adapting. This approach, seen in OpenAI's model, emphasizes user feedback loops, potentially bridging divides between innovation and regulation.

Verification Through External Sources

Web searches, such as the article "Doomers, Bloomers, and Zoomers: Clinton & Hoffman Weigh in on AI’s Future" (New York Academy of Sciences), confirmed these traits, with Doomers seen as fearing catastrophe, Gloomers advocating controls, Zoomers pushing expansion, and Bloomers, like Hoffman, optimistic with risk management. Similarly, "Embracing AI: Are You a Doomer, Gloomer, Zoomer, or Bloomer?" (Knowledge at Wharton) reinforced this, with Bloomers as cautiously optimistic, driving forward while tapping brakes.

Implications and Broader Context

These personas reflect the polarized yet interconnected discourse on AI. Doomers and Gloomers highlight risks, Zoomers push for growth, and Bloomers seek balance, aligning with Hoffman's vision of AI enhancing human agency, as seen in his discussions on X (Reid Hoffman). The debate, as noted in "Superagency Review: Bidding Farewell to Dystopia" (AEI), shows controversy, with Gloomers and Doomers favoring caution, while Zoomers and Bloomers advocate progress, influencing policy and public perception.

This detailed analysis ensures a comprehensive understanding, capturing all relevant details from the thinking process, including the extraction, interpretation, and verification steps, to provide a complete, self-contained response.

Key Citations

Doomers, Bloomers, and Zoomers: Clinton & Hoffman Weigh in on AI’s Future

Embracing AI: Are You a Doomer, Gloomer, Zoomer, or Bloomer?

Superagency Review: Bidding Farewell to Dystopia

Superagency Spectrum Test (SST):

This assessment is designed to identify your dominant AI persona, as inspired by Reid Hoffman’s Superagency.

Instructions

Please rate your agreement with each of the following statements on a scale from 1 to 5, where:

1 = Strongly Disagree

2 = Disagree

3 = Neutral

4 = Agree

5 = Strongly Agree

Record your responses for each statement, and then I will share the scoring guide to calculate your results.

Assessment Questions

1.     I worry that AI could become uncontrollable and pose an existential threat to humanity.

2.     The potential for AI to cause harm outweighs its benefits.

3.     AI will likely lead to significant job displacement in the near future.

4.     The societal impacts of AI, such as bias and privacy issues, are my primary concerns.

5.     AI is a powerful tool that can drive unprecedented innovation and progress.

6.     The benefits of AI far outweigh the potential risks.

7.     AI can be a force for good if developed with broad participation and inclusivity.

8.     Iterative deployment and user feedback are crucial for ensuring AI is safe and beneficial.

Scoring:

Calculate your scores for each trait by summing your responses to the corresponding questions:

1 & 2: Add your scores for questions 1 and 2 (Range: 2–10).

3 & 4: Add your scores for questions 3 and 4 (Range: 2–10).

5 & 6: Add your scores for questions 5 and 6 (Range: 2–10).

7 & 8: Add your scores for questions 7 and 8 (Range: 2–10).

Interpretation:

Your score for each trait reflects your level of alignment with that perspective:

High Alignment (8–10): You strongly identify with this trait.

Moderate Alignment (5–7): You have some agreement with this trait.

Low Alignment (1–4): You have little to no agreement with this trait.

Your dominant trait is the one with the highest score. If multiple traits tie for the highest score, you may identify with those perspectives equally. The scores for all four traits will show the degree to which you align with each, giving you a nuanced view of your persona assessment.

Example

Suppose someone responds as follows:

Q1: 4, Q2: 4 → Doomer Score = 8

Q3: 3, Q4: 3 → Gloomer Score = 6

Q5: 2, Q6: 2 → Zoomer Score = 4

Q7: 4, Q8: 3 → Bloomer Score = 7

Results:

Doomer: 8 (High Alignment)

Gloomer: 6 (Moderate Alignment)

Zoomer: 4 (Low Alignment)

Bloomer: 7 (Moderate Alignment)

This person’s dominant trait is Doomer, with strong concerns about AI’s risks, but they also show moderate alignment with Bloomer (valuing safe, inclusive development) and Gloomer (worried about societal impacts).

The four traits reflect different perspectives on artificial intelligence:

Doomers: Pessimistic about AI, emphasizing existential risks and potential catastrophes.

Gloomers: Cautious about AI, focusing on near-term societal challenges like job loss or ethical concerns.

Zoomers: Optimistic about AI, viewing it as a driver of innovation and progress.

Bloomers: Balanced and hopeful, advocating for inclusive, safe AI development to enhance humanity.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. To view the terms, visit Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0. Deed - Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International - Creative Commons