The motivation behind creating superintelligence is that it could apply its radical intelligence to solve humanity's biggest problems, like disease and scarcity. This could lead to a scale of abundance and flourishing currently unimaginable, echoing historical progress driven by technological advancements.

The debate pitting AI safety against AI opportunity presents a false choice. Historical parallels, like the railroad industry, show that safety regulations (e.g., standardized tracks, air brakes) were essential for enabling greater speed, reliability, and economic potential. Trustworthy AI will unlock greater opportunity.

Public and expert opinions on AI are split between two extremes: it will either save humanity or destroy it. There is a notable absence of a moderate, middle-ground perspective, which is a departure from how previous technological shifts like the internet were discussed.

The discourse on AI is overly focused on preventing harms like existential risk. A more productive approach is to also define a public agenda for what we want AI to *achieve*—the public 'goods' it can create, such as solving orphan diseases or simplifying government services.

The public discourse on AI is fixated on negative outcomes like job displacement and bubbles. There is a notable absence of a clear, compelling vision for what a positive, constructive, and abundant future with AI actually looks like for society.

The focus on AI risk overlooks the opportunity cost of "pacing." Delaying frontier model development, while potentially safer, also pushes back the timeline for major societal benefits like AI-driven scientific discoveries and disease cures, creating a difficult societal trade-off.

AI will create negative consequences, like the internet spawned the dark web. However, its potential to solve major problems like disease and energy scarcity makes its development a net positive for society, justifying the risks that must be managed along the way.

The public discourse is dominated by 'P-Doom,' the probability of an AI-induced catastrophe. This focus obscures the other side of the equation: 'P-Boom,' the probability of unprecedented human flourishing. A balanced conversation requires acknowledging that if AI is powerful enough to destroy humanity, it is also powerful enough to radically improve it.

Drawing on Nick Bostrom's 'astronomical waste' argument, the focus should be on mitigating existential risks. While accelerating progress brings a better future sooner (adding one year of utopia), preventing a catastrophe preserves the *entire* potential future, making risk mitigation a far higher-leverage activity.