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.

Instead of building a single, monolithic AGI, the "Comprehensive AI Services" model suggests safety comes from creating a buffered ecosystem of specialized AIs. These agents can be superhuman within their domain (e.g., protein folding) but are fundamentally limited, preventing runaway, uncontrollable intelligence.

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.

A system where AIs have property rights creates a powerful economic disincentive to build unaligned AIs. If a company cannot reliably align an AI to remit its wages, the massive development cost becomes a loss. This framework naturally discourages the creation of potentially dangerous, uncooperative models.

As powerful AI capabilities become widely available, they pose significant risks. This creates a difficult choice: risk societal instability or implement a degree of surveillance to monitor for misuse. The challenge is to build these systems with embedded civil liberties protections, avoiding a purely authoritarian model.

The "one rogue AI takes over" scenario is unlikely because we are developing an ecosystem of multiple, roughly-competitive frontier models. No single instance is orders of magnitude more powerful than others. This creates a balanced environment where a vast number of AI actors can monitor and counteract any single system that goes wrong.

Contrary to the belief that compliance stifles progress, regulations provide the necessary boundaries for AI to develop safely and consistently. These 'ground rules' don't curb innovation; they create a stable 'playing field' that prevents harmful outcomes and enables sustainable, trustworthy growth.

While often proposed to manage safety, a centralized, government-led AGI project is highly dangerous from a power concentration perspective. It removes checks and balances by consolidating immense capability within a single entity, whether it's one country or one company collaborating with the government.

Meredith Whittaker argues the biggest AI threat is not a sci-fi apocalypse, but the consolidation of power. AI's core requirements—massive data, computing infrastructure, and distribution channels—are controlled by a handful of established tech giants, further entrenching their dominance.