Buterin warns: AI giants dream of 'world domination,' while humanity is stuck between two naiveties
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has once again entered the debate about the future of artificial intelligence, and his words are not just criticism, but a deep analytical assessment of the current impasse. He stated that he does not see any realistic plan for managing the transition to artificial superintelligence (ASI). In his opinion, humanity is faced with a choice between two scenarios: "naive" and "naive squared."
The reason for this statement was a dispute surrounding the "AI 2040" forecast scenario and its critics. Buterin notes that both sides are "locked into mutually incompatible worldviews" regarding the pace of AI development. The "AI 2040" scenario assumes the emergence of superintelligence by 2040 under almost any development of events, except for titanic efforts to completely stop it. Critics, according to the developer's observation, call such a forecast naive, overestimating people's ability to coordinate. At the same time, they themselves, in Buterin's opinion, show naivety by assuming that the transition to superintelligence will proceed smoothly and conflict-free by default.
Buterin emphasizes that the critics' position only makes sense in a world where AI remains an "ordinary technology." However, in a world where superintelligence is possible as early as 2030, it is, in his words, untenable. Vitalik himself admits to deep uncertainty: if he were confident in at least one of the scenarios, he would join the corresponding camp. But for now, he does not understand which world humanity lives in.
Concerns about the concentration of power
Separately, Buterin expressed discomfort with the rhetoric of some major AI companies. He is alarmed by the mindset of: "open source is bad, and a good outcome is where our guys gain controlling global dominance." He believes that in a "normal" world, such statements should trigger all political alarm bells simultaneously.
Buterin himself views superintelligence 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.
How to find a compromise
The Ethereum developer considers finding a deal acceptable to both sides as key. "A winning agreement will be one that both sides accept based on their current beliefs, albeit for different reasons," he noted.
Buterin proposes agreeing in advance on a set of triggers signaling that "something serious is happening." As examples, he cited super-pandemics, 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 sides would agree in advance to seriously consider a slowdown or pause. In his idea, critics would accept this, expecting the triggers not to fire, while the concerned would expect the opposite.
Addressing the heads of tech giants, Buterin admitted that if he were in Elon Musk's or Mark Zuckerberg's shoes, he would restructure social platforms to search for such mutually beneficial deals. However, he immediately added that this idea is also naive.
Analytical commentary from Cryptalist: Buterin's position is a rare example of systemic thinking in the chaos of the AI race. His proposal on triggers is, in essence, an attempt to apply the principles of smart contracts to global risk management. For now, the market and developers are fixated on speed, forgetting that in a race without rules, the winner might end up in an empty and radioactive world.