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.

Coined in 1965, the "intelligence explosion" describes a runaway feedback loop. An AI capable of conducting AI research could use its intelligence to improve itself. This newly enhanced intelligence would make it even better at AI research, leading to exponential, uncontrollable growth in capability. This "fast takeoff" could leave humanity far behind in a very short period.

Fears of a superintelligent AI takeover are based on 'thinkism'—the flawed belief that intelligence trumps all else. To have an effect in the real world requires other traits like perseverance and empathy. Intelligence is necessary but not sufficient, and the will to survive will always overwhelm the will to predate.

The development of superintelligence is unique because the first major alignment failure will be the last. Unlike other fields of science where failure leads to learning, an unaligned superintelligence would eliminate humanity, precluding any opportunity to try again.

If an AGI is given a physical body and the goal of self-preservation, it will necessarily develop behaviors that approximate human emotions like fear and competitiveness to navigate threats. This makes conflict an emergent and unavoidable property of embodied AGI, not just a sci-fi trope.

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.

A common misconception is that a super-smart entity would inherently be moral. However, intelligence is merely the ability to achieve goals. It is orthogonal to the nature of those goals, meaning a smarter AI could simply become a more effective sociopath.

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.'

Humanity has a poor track record of respecting non-human minds, such as in factory farming. While pigs cannot retaliate, AI's cognitive capabilities are growing exponentially. Mistreating a system that will likely surpass human intelligence creates a rational reason for it to view humanity as a threat in the future.