Unlike advances in specific fields like rocketry or medicine, an advance in general intelligence accelerates every scientific domain at once. This makes Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) a foundational technology that dwarfs the power of all others combined, including fire or electricity.

The unique danger of an AI-driven transformation is its unprecedented speed. Unlike past revolutions that unfolded over centuries, AI could reshape society in decades or less, overwhelming our institutions' ability to adapt, similar to how it took 50 years to get the Paris Climate Agreement.

The first entity to achieve AGI could see it self-improve at an exponential rate, potentially achieving 20,000 years of progress overnight. This concept of "fast takeoff" makes any delay in the AI race, even for regulatory reasons, a potentially catastrophic strategic error.

Unlike previous technological revolutions that unfolded over centuries, allowing for societal adaptation, the current AI transition is happening too fast. This speed prevents the development of adequate mitigations, understanding, and defenses. The common-sense intuition that "we are going too fast" is the correct and most important take.

Developing superintelligence is humanity's top priority. If achieved safely, it can solve other existential risks like climate change. If developed unsafely, it will dominate all other threats, making them irrelevant. In either scenario, superintelligence is the pivotal challenge that dictates the outcome of all others.

To grasp AI's potential impact, imagine compressing 100 years of progress (1925-2025)—from atomic bombs to the internet and major social movements—into ten years. Human institutions, which don't speed up, would face enormous challenges, making high-stakes decisions on compressed, crisis-level timelines.

Even if the market would eventually build decision-making tools, their impact is time-sensitive. Waiting for commercial rollout might mean they arrive after AGI, too late to help navigate the riskiest period. Therefore, philanthropic or impact-driven acceleration, even by a few months, is highly valuable.

While thousands work on AI safety, the field is severely neglected relative to the problem's potential scale. For perspective, the Nature Conservancy alone employs more people (3,000-4,000) than the estimated number working globally on the most severe risks from AGI, highlighting a massive resource disparity.

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.