Vitalik: Maintain an open attitude towards slowing down or pausing AI, and agree to initiate a pause if extreme situations arise
Vitalik posted on the X platform, stating that AI 2040 and its critics have incompatible worldviews regarding the speed and significance of AI progress. AI 2040 believes that unless strong measures are taken to completely prevent it, some form of superintelligence will emerge in various scenarios by 2040; critics argue that AI 2040 underestimates human coordination capabilities and threatens freedom, but do not view ASI itself as a risk of power concentration.He believes that if he were convinced that the current form of AI is just an ordinary technology, he would be closer to the critics' camp; if he were convinced that superintelligence would inevitably arrive by 2030, he would be closer to the AI 2040 camp. At the same time, due to significant uncertainty, he remains open to the idea of slowing down or pausing, and feels uncomfortable with the stance proposed by some large AI companies and intellectuals that "open source is detrimental, and the ideal outcome is to maintain global control dominance."Vitalik stated that an important reason he supports the d/acc platform is that directions such as formal verification, cryptography, secure and open hardware, pandemic resilience, defensive biotechnology, food and basic resource security, public cognitive systems, and non-concentrated power physical security are worth promoting under both worldviews. He also mentioned that the 2040 plan has increasingly supported open source and incorporated the idea of "mutual assured destruction of computational power," which is an improvement compared to allowing a few participants to selectively deprive their identified subjects of rights.There is no way to avoid trade-offs regarding whether to slow down or pause, and Vitalik believes that trigger conditions can be preset, allowing for a more open attitude towards slowing down or pausing when sufficient conditions are met within a specific timeframe.He also stated that if he were Elon Musk or Zuck, he would significantly transform Twitter into a platform that helps identify and facilitate such large win-win agreements, encouraging more people to participate in discussions, but he thinks this might also be naive. Currently, he does not see any non-naive ASI transition response plans, so he tends to show some tolerance towards those who are trying.
