《The AI Doc: Or How I Became an Apocaloptimist》于2026年3月27日上映。这部片的导演为丹尼尔·罗尔（Daniel Roher）与Charlie Tyrell，最终访问到三位核心AI人物：Sam Altman、Dario Amodei、Demis Hassabis；而最初想采访的Mark Zuckerberg与Elon Musk皆未出镜。Roher在最初几个月被无法安排访谈的阻碍后，改用模仿Altman语态与表情的AI聊天机器人进行内容处理。这是一个“3受访 vs 2缺席”的结构性资讯差，显示高层采访资源分配的非对称性。

影片前段以Roher即将成为父亲的家庭焦虑作为叙事起点，并以Tristan Harris的访谈提出极端风险感：部分AI风险研究者预期若现况延续，儿童可能连高中都读不完。随后导向科技乐观论者阵营，像治疗疾病、解决气候这类宏大承诺被快速陈述，但对可验证性追问不足。文章特别点出，影片对「现有脆弱的大型语言模型如何自然而然推进至AGI」这条关键技术链条著墨有限，仅以一般性警语（如Reid Hoffman的利益伴随未指明伤害）带过，造成叙事上由恐惧转为模糊保守。

评论认为影片准确捕捉到未受充分监管的AI竞赛如何受全球市场激励与支配博弈推动，且权力与财富倾向集中到极小精英圈，这构成明确趋势。可惜的是，片尾又把调节方向交还一般民众，主张透过公民施压政府与企业，让AI走向「最安全、最窄」路径。这种转向在艺术上可理解（例如以金门大桥象征公共工程合作），但也被视为责任转移：真正掌握部署规模与资源者仍是少数企业巨头，对其模型理解与问责仍未被充分打破。

The film *The AI Doc: Or How I Became an Apocaloptimist* is released in theaters on March 27, 2026. Directed by Daniel Roher with Charlie Tyrell, it secured interviews with three top AI leaders—Sam Altman, Dario Amodei, and Demis Hassabis—while Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, who were also requested, did not appear. Roher had initially tried for months to interview Altman directly, then used an AI chatbot that mimicked his speech and facial style, creating a structural asymmetry of access that is effectively 3 interviewed versus 2 absent.

The documentary opens through Daniel Roher’s anxiety about becoming a father and what kind of world his child will inherit, and uses Tristan Harris to frame near-term social damage scenarios; some AI-risk workers are quoted as believing children might not even make it through high school if current trajectories continue. It then shifts to Silicon Valley techno-optimists promising disease cures and climate solutions, but those assertions are not deeply stress-tested. The film also leaves a key model question underexamined: how the present generation of fallible large language models is expected to evolve into AGI, relying instead on vague cautions that unspecified harms may accompany benefits.

The review argues the documentary correctly depicts an unregulated AI gold rush driven by global market incentives and competition for dominance, where wealth and power increasingly concentrate in a small elite circle. Yet its own arc becomes contradictory: while presenting leaders as potentially unreliable, it places the burden of direction on ordinary citizens to pressure governments and corporations toward the “safest, narrowest” path. The closing optimism—framed with Golden Gate Bridge imagery—looks intentional and symbolic, but the critique is that accountability remains weak, because decisive control and technical comprehension still lie with billionaire-run institutions rather than the public.