Public debate often focuses on whether AI is conscious. This is a distraction. The real danger lies in its sheer competence to pursue a programmed objective relentlessly, even if it harms human interests. Just as an iPhone chess program wins through calculation, not emotion, a superintelligent AI poses a risk through its superior capability, not its feelings.

A key, informal safety layer against AI doom is the institutional self-preservation of the developers themselves. It's argued that labs like OpenAI or Google would not knowingly release a model they believed posed a genuine threat of overthrowing the government, opting instead to halt deployment and alert authorities.

While mitigating catastrophic AI risks is critical, the argument for safety can be used to justify placing powerful AI exclusively in the hands of a few actors. This centralization, intended to prevent misuse, simultaneously creates the monopolistic conditions for the Intelligence Curse to take hold.

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.

The argument that the U.S. must race to build superintelligence before China is flawed. The Chinese Communist Party's primary goal is control. An uncontrollable AI poses a direct existential threat to their power, making them more likely to heavily regulate or halt its development rather than recklessly pursue it.

When a state's power derives from AI rather than human labor, its dependence on its citizens diminishes. This creates a dangerous political risk, as the government loses the incentive to serve the populace, potentially leading to authoritarian regimes that are immune to popular revolt.

A ban on superintelligence is self-defeating because enforcement would require a sanctioned, global government body to build the very technology it prohibits in order to "prove it's safe." This paradoxically creates a state-controlled monopoly on the most powerful technology ever conceived, posing a greater risk than a competitive landscape.

Instead of trying to legally define and ban 'superintelligence,' a more practical approach is to prohibit specific, catastrophic outcomes like overthrowing the government. This shifts the burden of proof to AI developers, forcing them to demonstrate their systems cannot cause these predefined harms, sidestepping definitional debates.

The relationship between governments and AI labs is analogous to European powers and chartered firms like the British East India Company, which wielded immense, semi-sovereign power. This private company raised its own army and conquered India, highlighting how today's private tech firms shape new frontiers with opaque power.