Buterin against AI "world domination": analysis of the Ethereum creator's position
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has sharply criticized the largest players in the artificial intelligence industry. In his view, many of them dream of "world domination" and do not offer a coherent plan for managing the transition to artificial superintelligence (ASI). Buterin notes that humanity is faced with a choice between two extremely naive scenarios.
The trigger for the discussion was the predictive scenario "AI 2040," which assumes the emergence of superintelligence by 2040 in almost any outcome. The only exception, according to Buterin, would be titanic efforts aimed at completely halting AI development. Critics of this scenario, in turn, call it naive in its assessment of people's ability to coordinate. However, as Buterin himself emphasizes, these critics are equally naive in believing that the transition to ASI will go smoothly by default.
The key problem, according to the analyst, is the rhetoric of some AI giants who promote the narrative that "open source is bad, and a good outcome is when our guys gain controlling world domination." Buterin considers this approach not just dangerous, but politically alarming. He views superintelligence itself as a colossal risk of power concentration.
In contrast, Buterin promotes the concept of d/acc — decentralized acceleration. It includes the development of formal verification, cryptography, secure open hardware, and public epistemology. The value of this concept is that it is useful regardless of which future scenario unfolds — whether with fast or slow AI development.
As a compromise, Buterin proposes pre-agreeing on a set of triggers signaling the onset of "serious events": for example, an unemployment rate above 25%, the emergence of autonomous weapons, or a superpandemic. If a sufficient number of such triggers are activated within a specified timeframe, the parties should seriously consider slowing down or pausing AI development. In his design, this would allow skeptics and optimists to reach a consensus: the former would hope the triggers are not activated, the latter would hope they are, and both sides would have an interest in adhering to the agreements.
Expert opinion: Buterin's position is not just a philosophical debate. It is a pragmatic view of the risk of power concentration in the age of AI. His proposal on triggers is an attempt to create a risk management mechanism that could unite both ultra-optimists from Silicon Valley and their critics. However, as Buterin himself admits, the idea that Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg would voluntarily restructure their platforms to seek such mutually beneficial deals might also be naive. Nevertheless, the very fact of raising the question about the need for formal ASI governance mechanisms is an important step forward for the entire industry.