AI 2040: Plan A
A new speculative paper, "AI 2040: Plan A," offers a utopian vision for AI's future by proposing a global pause on superintelligence development until 2040 and mandating open-source research. Building on the authors' previous influential
The Lowdown
Following a prior warning of potential extinction or power concentration from AI, "AI 2040: Plan A" presents a hopeful, yet highly prescriptive, future for humanity's relationship with advanced artificial intelligence. It argues for a deliberate, globally coordinated deceleration of AI progress to ensure a more equitable and safer trajectory.
- The core proposal, "Plan A," suggests delaying the development of superintelligence until 2040.
- This delay would be achieved through a radical commitment to public AI research, making all advancements universally accessible.
- The plan advocates for the proliferation of AI development across dozens of global companies, moving away from concentrated power.
- A crucial mechanism involves establishing a "mutually assured compute destruction" regime to deter any single entity from gaining overwhelming AI dominance.
- The paper paints a near-future (2027-2028) where AI rapidly automates white-collar jobs, leading to significant power concentration in US and Chinese tech giants.
- It envisions a US Congress grappling with the implications, passing insufficient measures like the "AI Transparency Act of 2027" amidst rising public concern over resource consumption and job displacement.
- The scenario culminates with AI as a central issue in the 2028 US election, forcing political leaders to confront the profound societal changes wrought by accelerating AI capabilities.
Ultimately, "Plan A" serves as a blueprint for a managed, transparent, and globally distributed approach to AI development, aiming to avert the catastrophic outcomes predicted if the current unbridled race continues unchecked.
The Gossip
Skeptical Scrutiny of Speculation
Many commenters express significant skepticism regarding the paper's predictions, particularly the assumed exponential growth of AI and the feasibility of certain timelines. Critics question the inevitability of AGI/ASI arising from current LLM technology, suggesting these models might be approaching an S-curve plateau rather than an unchecked intelligence explosion. Concerns are also raised about wildly speculative economic forecasts, such as GPU build-outs costing trillions, and unrealistic projections for robotics adoption and unemployment rates.
Feasibility of Future Freeze
A core debate revolves around the practicality of implementing a global moratorium or slowdown on AI development. Some argue that historical precedents (like nuclear weapons control or biological research guidelines) demonstrate humanity's capacity for collective restraint. However, many more point to the intense geopolitical and economic competition between nations (especially the US and China) and corporations, suggesting that self-imposed limitations would be strategically disadvantageous and unenforceable. The sentiment is that 'Pandora's box is open,' and the race will continue regardless of safety concerns.
Controlling Centralized Computing Concerns
Commenters raise strong objections to the control mechanisms proposed in 'Plan A,' fearing that attempts to prevent power concentration could paradoxically lead to a global 'police state' or regulatory capture by existing AI monopolies. There's concern that restricting access to advanced AI to a select few, whether government or large corporations, would stifle open-source innovation and create unprecedented avenues for authoritarian misuse. The technical feasibility and political implications of tracking all 'AI-relevant compute' are also widely questioned.
Public Perception and Political Pressures
The discussion explores how public sentiment and political movements might shape AI's future, often driven by tangible concerns rather than abstract 'AI safety' arguments. Some suggest that populist movements fueled by fears of job loss, resource depletion (like datacenter water usage), or even foreign-influenced 'anti-AI hysteria' could be the most effective catalysts for policy changes. Commenters debate whether these public concerns are genuine, manipulated, or simply a convenient 'ally' for AI safety advocates seeking a slowdown.