This article is about:

How do we (more) safely defer to AIs? (Ryan Greenblatt, Julian Stastny)
AI 2040: Plan A, Alignment Roadmap (Ryan Greenblatt, Thomas Larsen).

If you've read them, I'm impressed, they're both very long. If you haven't read them, you might be confused about:

Why should we "hand off" to early AIs? Shouldn't we use control?
How does improving AI's conceptual reasoning reduce overall risk? Won't this make them better schemers?

For the sake of my fellow Greenblattologists, I have tried to boil down the arguments to a simple diagram.

Motivating scenario.

Responsible Leader. Let's assume that we're advising a reasonable AI company, with a 1 to 12 month lead over its competitors. The company will have poor incentives, it's managed by humans with typical flaws. However, the company has broadly good intentions, and isn't wildly mistaken about the strategic situation.

Conceptual workload. The reasonable AI company faces exogenous risks, e.g. a reckless competitor, or a rogue misaligned AI about to hit a software-only singularity. Managing these exogenous risks would require a sizable load of conceptual work, which is fuzzy, philosophically-loaded, and hard-to-verify. This includes: