A common thought pattern people seem to fall into when thinking about AI x-risk is approaching the problem as if the risk isn’t real, substantial, and imminent even if they think it is. When thinking this way, it becomes impossible to imagine the natural responses of people to the horror of what is happening with AI.

This sort of thinking might lead one to view a policy like getting rid of advanced AI chips is “too extreme” even though it's clearly worth it to avoid (e.g.) a 10% chance of human extinction in the next 10 years. It might lead one to favor regulating AI, even though Stopping AI is easier than Regulating it. It might lead one to favor safer approaches to building AI that compromise a lot on competitiveness, out of concern that society will demand a substitute for the AI that they don’t get to have.

But in fact, I think there is likely a very narrow window between “society not being upset enough to do anything substantial to govern AI” and “society being so upset that getting rid of advanced AI chips is viewed as moderate”.

There are a few reasons why I think [...]

---

Outline:

(01:18) Concern about the other risks of AI

(02:36) The KISS principle: Keep it Simple, Stupid

(03:17) A preference for humans remaining relevant

---

First published:
April 27th, 2026

Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Eusk6M4r4Y6xaTmsB/on-the-political-feasibility-of-stopping-ai

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

“On the political feasibility of stopping AI” by David Scott Krueger

LessWrong (30+ Karma)

“On the political feasibility of stopping AI” by David Scott Krueger