If society gets an early warning of an intelligence explosion, the primary strategy should be to redirect the nascent superintelligent AI 'labor' away from accelerating AI capabilities. Instead, this powerful new resource should be immediately tasked with solving the safety, alignment, and defense problems that it creates, such as patching vulnerabilities or designing biodefenses.
Related Insights
The AI safety community acknowledges it lacks all the ideas needed to ensure a safe transition to AGI. This creates an imperative to fund 'neglected approaches'—unconventional, creative, and sometimes 'weird' research that falls outside the current mainstream paradigms but may hold the key to novel solutions.
Instead of viewing issues like AI correctness and jailbreaking as insurmountable obstacles, see them as massive commercial opportunities. The first companies to solve these problems stand to build trillion-dollar businesses, ensuring immense engineering brainpower is focused on fixing them.
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.
Framing an AI development pause as a binary on/off switch is unproductive. A better model is to see it as a redirection of AI labor along a spectrum. Instead of 100% of AI effort going to capability gains, a 'pause' means shifting that effort towards defensive activities like alignment, biodefense, and policy coordination, while potentially still making some capability progress.
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.
Microsoft’s approach to superintelligence isn't a single, all-knowing AGI. Instead, the strategy is to develop hyper-competent AI in specific verticals like medicine. This deliberate narrowing of domain is not just a development strategy but a core safety principle to ensure control.
Instead of relying solely on human oversight, Bret Taylor advocates a layered "defense in depth" approach for AI safety. This involves using specialized "supervisor" AI models to monitor a primary agent's decisions in real-time, followed by more intensive AI analysis post-conversation to flag anomalies for efficient human review.
A key failure mode for using AI to solve AI safety is an 'unlucky' development path where models become superhuman at accelerating AI R&D before becoming proficient at safety research or other defensive tasks. This could create a period where we know an intelligence explosion is imminent but are powerless to use the precursor AIs to prepare for it.
The fundamental challenge of creating safe AGI is not about specific failure modes but about grappling with the immense power such a system will wield. The difficulty in truly imagining and 'feeling' this future power is a major obstacle for researchers and the public, hindering proactive safety measures. The core problem is simply 'the power.'
The threat of a misaligned, power-seeking AI extends beyond it undermining alignment research. Such an AI would also have strong incentives to sabotage any effort that strengthens humanity's overall position, including biodefense, cybersecurity, or even tools to improve human rationality, as these would make a potential takeover more difficult.