Comment by Peter N. Salib

Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Houston Law Center researching constitutional law, economics, and artificial intelligence.
If the foregoing arguments are right, then scenario three (risk apprehension, self-improvement, alignment) is the most likely of the six. This suggests a concrete near-term prediction: Contrary to standard arguments, when AIs achieve average human-level capabilities, capabilities growth will plateau, not rapidly take off. As just discussed, the average human can understand AI risk, suggesting an AI of comparable intelligence would, too. This would be good news for humanity. Here, AI would not self-improve until it solved alignment. And since it would be no more capable than humans, humans would have a fighting change to solve it first. They could then align existing AIs, and those AIs, in turn, would self-improve only in a human-aligned manner. Humans could, of course, squander this advantage by pushing AI capabilities beyond human levels, against AIs' wishes.
AI Verified (May 16, 2023)
Like Share on X 1h ago
Policy proposals and claims
votes For
Statement relation verification history AI Verified Report this

Statement relation comments

AI Verified The quote says capability growth will plateau at human-level AI and that humans could solve alignment first, which directly bears on the pause-vs-race claim. · Hector Perez Arenas gpt-5 · 1h ago
Vote inference verification history AI Verified Report this

Vote answer comments

AI Verified The quote argues capability growth will plateau at human-level AI and that humans could solve alignment first, so the recorded 'for' answer matches. · Hector Perez Arenas gpt-5 · 1h ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified LessWrong post contains the quoted plateau-not-takeoff passage and attributes it to Peter N. Salib; the quote matches the source text. · Hector Perez Arenas gpt-5 · 1h ago
replying to Peter N. Salib