Vitalik Buterin against "naive" AI scenarios: criticism of giants and the search for compromise
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has once again drawn the attention of the crypto community by sharply criticizing major players in the artificial intelligence industry. His main message: humanity is stuck between two equally naive scenarios — "naive" and "naive squared." And neither offers a realistic plan for managing the transition to artificial superintelligence (ASI).
The Debate Around "AI 2040"
The trigger for the discussion was a predictive scenario called "AI 2040," which suggests that superintelligence will emerge by 2040 under almost any circumstances — except for titanic efforts to completely block it. Critics of this scenario, Buterin observes, call it naive in assessing people's ability to coordinate. However, the Ethereum developer himself sees a paradox here: opponents fail to notice their own naivety by assuming that the transition to ASI will be smooth and conflict-free.
Buterin emphasizes that the critics' position only makes sense in a world where AI remains an "ordinary technology." But in a world where superintelligence is possible as early as 2030, he says, it does not hold up to any criticism. Vitalik himself admits to uncertainty: if he were confident in at least one of the scenarios, he would join the corresponding camp. For now, he does not understand which world humanity is living in.
Concerns About Power Concentration
A particular concern for Buterin is the rhetoric of some AI giants. He is alarmed by the mindset: "open source is bad, and a good outcome is one where our guys gain controlling world domination." In his view, in a "normal" world, such statements should trigger all political alarm bells simultaneously.
Buterin sees superintelligence itself as a huge risk of power concentration. That is why he promotes the d/acc platform, which includes the development of formal verification, cryptography, secure open hardware, pandemic resilience, and public epistemology. The value of these areas is that they are useful in both future scenarios — whether AI develops quickly or slowly.
Seeking a Compromise
Key for the Ethereum developer is finding a deal acceptable to both sides. "A winning agreement will be one that both sides accept based on their current beliefs, albeit for different reasons," Buterin notes.
He proposes agreeing in advance on a set of triggers signaling that "something serious is happening." As examples, he cites superpandemics, unemployment rates above 25%, or the emergence of autonomous weapons. If a sufficient number of such triggers are activated within an agreed timeframe, the sides would pre-commit to seriously considering a slowdown or pause. In his idea, critics would accept this expecting the triggers not to fire, while the concerned would expect the opposite.
Buterin also addressed the heads of tech giants, stating that if he were Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg, he would restructure social platforms to seek such mutually beneficial deals. However, he admitted that this idea is also naive.
Cryptalist Analysis: Buterin's position is a rare example in the crypto industry of a pragmatic view of AI's future. He neither falls into the utopia of decentralization nor panics over a "machine uprising," but instead proposes a concrete risk management mechanism — a trigger system that could become the basis for global consensus. If AI giants ignore this approach, humanity risks becoming hostage to either their "naive" optimism or an equally naive fear.