Buterin vs. AI "World Domination": Naivety or Danger?
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has sharply criticized major players in the artificial intelligence industry, accusing them of dangerous ambitions and a lack of a clear plan for managing the transition to artificial superintelligence (ASI). According to him, humanity faces a choice between two "naive" scenarios, neither of which looks convincing.
Debate over the speed of AI development
The trigger for the discussion was the "AI 2040" forecast scenario, which assumes the emergence of superintelligence by 2040 under almost any circumstances. Buterin notes that critics of this scenario, on the contrary, consider it overly optimistic in assessing people's ability to coordinate. However, the Ethereum developer himself points out their own naivety: they believe that the transition to ASI will by default go smoothly.
Buterin emphasizes that the skeptics' position only makes sense in a world where AI remains an "ordinary technology." But if superintelligence becomes possible as early as 2030, their arguments, in his opinion, fall apart. Vitalik himself admits to uncertainty: he does not understand which of these two worlds we live in and is not ready to unconditionally join either camp.
Concerns about the concentration of power
Buterin is particularly alarmed by the rhetoric of some AI giants, which he characterizes as "open source is bad, and a good outcome is when our guys gain controlling world domination." In his opinion, such statements should trigger all political alarm bells simultaneously. He views superintelligence as a colossal risk of power concentration.
That is why Buterin 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 lies in their usefulness in both future scenarios.
Searching for a compromise
The key for the Ethereum developer is finding a deal acceptable to both sides. Buterin proposes agreeing in advance on a set of triggers signaling that "something serious is happening"—for example, superpandemics, an unemployment rate 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-agree to seriously consider a slowdown or pause.
Addressing the heads of technology giants, Buterin suggests restructuring social platforms to seek mutually beneficial solutions, although he acknowledges the naivety of this idea.
Expert opinion: Buterin once again demonstrates systems thinking, taking the discussion beyond purely technological disputes. His proposal on triggers is an attempt to create a risk management mechanism that could be accepted by both sides. However, the question remains open: are AI industry leaders ready to sacrifice ambitions for the sake of safety?