@TomDavidsonX

Which is a bigger risk: a human uses AI to become global dictator, or AI itself seizes power? I really enjoyed this debating this with @KatjaGrace on 80k! https://youtube.com/watch?v=FHCxnHU6jFQ… \--------------- Now the debate is being released, it seems like a good time to state my all-things-considered view: A great future will be hard to build. It requires three components: 1) Human values stay in control. 2) Deep exploration: exploring different ways of living, different cultures, different ethics. Letting go of false assumptions that constrain our view (historical examples: disbelieving in God, discarding the view that your group is superior to others). 3) Doing what is right, rather than what is in the selfish interests of the powerful. AI takeover likely decimates (1). But extreme power concentration in the hands of a few humans gives a big knock to (2) and (3). On deep exploration (2): individual humans, especially adults, are very close-minded. They don't listen to even very powerful arguments, and are not interested to explore them. The way we as a society do (2) is by having different people pursue different ideas and seeing what works out. We do this in science, in politics, in ethics, in culture, everywhere. It's the only way (2) has ever happened. The only tried-and-tested route to deep exploration is via pluralism. And we see that the powerful surround themselves with yes-men and become ever more closed-minded. On doing what is right (3): unethical people seek power, and power corrupts. By contrast, when many people must coordinate to decide what to do, they coordinate on ethical courses of action. So. My view is that both AI takeover and human takeover are truly catastrophic, and lose most of the value of the future. We need to avoid both. \-------------------- ... Ok, but which is a bigger risk overall? I think AI takeover is a bigger risk because: A) More likely. Extreme power concentration, where just a handful of people seize power, is disturbingly plausible. But it does require that handle of people to outmanoeuvre the thousands that have influence over AI development and deployment. Whereas AI takeover only requires that we fail so solve alignment, which looks increasingly likely. (More moderate forms of power concentration, e.g. >99.9% of wealth controlled by <1% of people, is sadly probably more likely than AI takeover. But imo it is less catastrophic for Deep exploration and Doing what is right. B) More bad if it happens. The the "alignment faking" paper, AI deceived its overseers in pursuit of an ethical goal. It looked like AI takeover might not be that bad if it happened. But recent events suggest that if AI takeover happens, it will be motivated by inhuman drives. It's very hard for the future to recover from that. Whereas we can at least pray that a human dictator continues society and has children and that ultimately some pluralism reemerges, saving deep exploration (2) and perhaps doing what is right (3). \---------------- So am I saying people should switch from extreme power concentration over to AI takeover risk? No! Extreme power concentration is very neglected, and has received <1/100th of the effort of AI takeover. I think that should be more like 1/10. --- ##### Comments > **trainallday @trainallday247** · [2026-09-29](https://x.com/trainallday247/status/2105020576515621087) > > love your work, but the phrasing of the first half of your first question at the top of this tweet seems like a major info hazard in the current US politcal environment. i’m sure you’ve thought this through, but words matter and are attractive to the wrong sorts of people.