Vitalik: Open to slowing down or pausing AI, supports the d/acc platform

Vitalik posted on the X platform stating that AI 2040 and its critics hold incompatible worldviews regarding the speed and importance of AI progress. AI 2040 believes that, unless strong measures are taken to completely prevent it, various scenarios will lead to some form of superintelligence by 2040; critics argue that AI 2040 underestimates human coordination capabilities and threatens freedom, but do not view ASI itself as a risk of power concentration. Vitalik stated that if he were convinced that current forms of AI are merely ordinary technologies, he would lean closer to the critics' camp; if he were sure that superintelligence would arrive by 2030 by default, he would be closer to the AI 2040 camp. He indicated that due to significant uncertainty, he remains open to slowing down or pausing, while feeling uncomfortable with the stance proposed by some large AI companies and intellectuals that "open source is detrimental, and the ideal outcome is one party holding global control and dominance." Vitalik noted that an important reason he supports the d/acc platform is that directions such as formal verification, cryptography, secure and open hardware, pandemic resilience, defensive biotechnology, food and basic resource security, public cognitive systems, and non-power-concentrating physical security are worth advancing under both worldviews. He also mentioned that the 2040 plan has become more supportive of open source and incorporates the concept of "Mutually Assured AI Destruction," which he views as an improvement over allowing a few participants to selectively deprive those they target of their rights. Vitalik stated that there is no way to avoid trade-offs on the question of slowing down or pausing, and that trigger conditions can be set in advance; if sufficient conditions are met within a specific timeframe, he would be more open to slowing down or pausing. He also said that if he were Elon Musk or Zuck, he would transform Twitter more significantly into a platform that helps identify and facilitate such large win-win agreements, allowing more people to participate in discussions, but he believes this might also be naive. Currently, he sees no non-naive plans for handling the ASI transition, so he tends to offer some leniency to those who are trying.