The dramatic slowdown of the nuclear power industry demonstrates that it is possible for governments to effectively halt the progress of a powerful technology. While this specific outcome may have been a net negative, it serves as a historical proof-of-concept for successfully implementing a global pause on AI development.

The path to surviving superintelligence is political: a global pact to halt its development, mirroring Cold War nuclear strategy. Success hinges on all leaders understanding that anyone building it ensures their own personal destruction, removing any incentive to cheat.

President Ronald Reagan, a nuclear hawk, dramatically changed his position on nuclear weapons after viewing the TV movie "The Day After." The film's depiction of nuclear war's horror "greatly depressed" him, leading directly to the Reykjavik Summit with Gorbachev and significant disarmament treaties.

The case of Stanislav Petrov, who averted nuclear war based on a 'funny feeling,' highlights a key vulnerability in AI. An AI would have followed its programming, while Petrov used intuition and contextual skepticism about new Soviet technology. AI lacks this visceral understanding of stakes and consequences, a fatal flaw in high-stakes decisions.

The growing, bipartisan backlash against AI could lead to a future where, like nuclear power, the technology is regulated out of widespread use due to public fear. This historical parallel warns that societal adoption is not inevitable and can halt even the most powerful technological advancements, preventing their full economic benefits from being realized.

The belief that AI development is unstoppable ignores history. Global treaties successfully limited nuclear proliferation, phased out ozone-depleting CFCs, and banned blinding lasers. These precedents prove that coordinated international action can steer powerful technologies away from the worst outcomes.

Instead of just condemning violence, the AI opposition should create constructive channels for people's fear and desire to act. These could include political advocacy or developing new governance models, preventing a slide into destructive acts by offering heroic alternatives.

A viral Substack essay uses a fictional, sci-fi narrative of AI-driven economic collapse not just to scare readers, but to provoke tangible action. This strategy of "action-mongering" can be a powerful tool for lobbyists and advocates to illustrate the consequences of policy inaction and spur change.

When the White House first proposed a policy against using AI for nuclear launch decisions in 2021, DOD officials found it strange. This highlights the incredible speed at which AI's strategic risks have moved from fringe concerns to central policy debates in just a few years.