For a blueprint on AI governance, look to Cold War-era geopolitics, not just tech history. The 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty, which established cooperation between the US and Soviet Union, shows that global compromise on new frontiers is possible even amidst intense rivalry. It provides a model for political, not just technical, solutions.

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 same governments pushing AI competition for a strategic edge may be forced into cooperation. As AI democratizes access to catastrophic weapons (CBRN), the national security risk will become so great that even rival superpowers will have a mutual incentive to create verifiable safety treaties.

Establishing a significant AI lead over autocratic rivals is not just for geopolitical dominance. It is a strategic tool that affords democracies the luxury to prioritize safety, ethics, and trust. This lead prevents a "race to the bottom" where both sides might irresponsibly cut corners on safety.

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.

The risk of malicious actors using powerful AI decision tools is significant. The most effective countermeasure is not to restrict the technology, but to ensure it is widely and equitably distributed. This prevents any single group from gaining a dangerous strategic advantage over others.

The AI competition is not a race to develop the most powerful technology, but a race to see which nation is better at steering and governing that power. Developing an uncontrollable 'AI bazooka' first is not a win; true advantage comes from creating systems that strengthen, rather than weaken, one's own society.

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.

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.