[Context: This post is aimed at all readers[1] who broadly agree that the current race toward superintelligence is bad, that stopping would be good, and that the technical pathways to a solution are too unpromising and hard to coordinate on to justify going ahead.]

TL;DR: We address the objections made to a statement supporting a ban on superintelligence by people who agree that a ban on superintelligence would be desirable.

Quoting Lucius Bushnaq:

I support some form of global ban or pause on AGI/ASI development. I think the current AI R&D regime is completely insane, and if it continues as it is, we will probably create an unaligned superintelligence that kills everyone.

We have been circulating a statement expressing ~this view, targeted at people who have done AI alignment/technical AI x-safety research (mostly outside frontier labs). Some people declined to sign, even if they agreed with the [...]

---

Outline:

(01:25) The reasons we would like you to sign the statement expressing support for banning superintelligence

(05:00) A positive vision

(08:07) Reasons given for not signing despite agreeing with the statement

(08:26) I already am taking a public stance, why endorse a single sentence summary?

(08:52) I am not already taking a public stance, so why endorse a one-sentence summary?

(09:19) The statement uses an ambiguous term X

(09:53) I would prefer a different (e.g., more accurate, epistemically rigorous, better at stimulating good thinking) way of stating my position on this issue

(11:12) The statement does not accurately capture my views, even though I strongly agree with its core

(12:05) I'd be on board if it also mentioned My Thing

(12:50) Taking a position on policy stuff is a different realm, and it takes more deliberation than just stating my opinion on facts

(13:21) I wouldnt support a permanent ban

(13:56) The statement doesnt include a clear mechanism to lift the ban

(15:52) Superintelligence might be too good to pass up

(17:41) I dont want to put myself out there

(18:12) I am not really an expert

(18:42) The safety community has limited political capital

(21:12) We must wait until a catastrophe before spending limited political capital

(22:17) Any other objections we missed? (and a hope for a better world)

The original text contained 24 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.

---

First published:
October 13th, 2025

Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4xQ6k39iMybR2CgYH/making-legible-that-many-experts-think-we-are-not-on-track

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

---

Images from the article:

Statement on AI risk with signatures from prominent tech leaders and academics.

The statement declares AI extinction risk as global priority alongside pandemics.

Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

“Making legible that many experts think we are not on track for a good future, barring some international cooperation” by Mateusz Bagiński, Ishual

LessWrong (30+ Karma)

“Making legible that many experts think we are not on track for a good future, barring some international cooperation” by Mateusz Bagiński, Ishual