Buterin vs. AI "World Domination": Criticism of Giants and the Search for Compromise
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has sharply criticized the largest players in the artificial intelligence industry. In his view, the rhetoric coming from some AI giants borders on outright dreams of "world domination" and offers no coherent plan for safely managing the transition to artificial superintelligence (ASI).
The trigger for Buterin's statement was a discussion around the predictive scenario "AI 2040" and its critics. As I analyze the situation, the creator of Ethereum sees a fundamental problem: both sides of the debate are stuck in "mutually incompatible worldviews" regarding the pace of artificial intelligence development.
Naivety Squared: Two Scenarios for the Future
Buterin notes that the "AI 2040" scenario assumes the emergence of superintelligence by 2040 under almost any development path, except for titanic efforts to completely halt it. Critics, in his observation, call such a forecast naive in assessing humanity's ability to coordinate. However, as the analyst emphasizes, they themselves fail to notice their own naivety by assuming that the transition to ASI will proceed smoothly and by default.
Essentially, according to Buterin, humanity is stuck choosing between a "naive" and a "naivety squared" scenario. 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, it is, in his conviction, untenable. Buterin himself admits to uncertainty: if he were confident in at least one of the scenarios, he would join the corresponding camp.
Concentration of Power as the Main Risk
Special attention is due to Buterin's criticism of the rhetoric of the AI companies themselves. He is alarmed by the mindset: "open source is bad, and a good outcome is one where our guys achieve controlling world domination." I believe this is an extremely dangerous signal. In a normal world, such statements should trigger all political alarm bells simultaneously. Buterin himself views superintelligence as a colossal risk of power concentration.
This is precisely 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 directions is that they are useful in both future scenarios. Notably, Buterin positively assessed that the "AI 2040" plan has become more friendly to open source and even mandates it.
Seeking Compromise: Triggers for a Pause
Buterin considers the search for a deal acceptable to both sides as a key element of his position. He proposes pre-agreeing 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 parties would pre-commit to seriously considering a slowdown or pause. Critics, in his idea, would accept this expecting the triggers not to fire, while the concerned would expect the opposite.
Addressing the heads of tech giants, Buterin suggested that if he were Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg, he would restructure social platforms to seek such mutually beneficial deals. However, he himself admits that this idea is also naive.
Expert Opinion: Buterin's position is a rare example of a rational approach to the existential risks of AI. His proposal for "triggers" is not a technical solution but a political mechanism that could form the basis for a global consensus. The crypto community should take note of this logic, as decentralization and formal verification are precisely the tools that can ensure the transparency and reliability of such agreements.