Pausing AI at human-genius level to solve alignment is safer than either racing to superintelligence or halting entirely

ai-regulation ethics future ai-safety ai-governance ai-policy

Share this with your representatives, journalists and friends

Arguments for

Human-level safety window

Proponents argue there is a sweet spot around top-human or top-expert capability: systems are powerful enough to accelerate alignment work and other preparation, yet still below the maximally capable AI humans are confident they can control. On this view, capabilities should rise to that level and then pause or slow nearly to a halt before superintelligence.

In the Plan A scenario, why does the Consortium choose to steadily increase capabilities until reaching top-expert-dominating AI (TED-AI) in 2035, then slow down nearly to a pause until handing off to these AIs in 2040? [...] Scale until you’re close to max-controllable-AI, i.e. …

Eli Lifland · Jul 10, 2026 · full quote
Unlike all other actors we model, the consortium is not racing to build better AIs as fast as they possibly can. The specific strategies are discussed in more detail in the Capabilities Scaling Strategy supplement, but at a high level, the strategy is to scale smoothly to Top-Exp…

Brendan Halstead · Jul 10, 2026 · full quote
Then, in the mid-2030s, they pause at AIs around the level of top human geniuses. These AIs are close enough to current AIs that the same alignment techniques that mostly-sort-of-work for ours might mostly-sort-of-work for them too... The plan is to spend the next ~10 years using…

Scott Alexander · Jul 9, 2026 · full quote
If our ability to make increasingly capable AI systems safe can’t benefit from such labor in a comparable way, then at least for relatively hard problem profiles, and absent large amounts of capability restraint, I think we’re likely headed for disaster. I also discuss the timing…

Joe Carlsmith · Mar 14, 2025 · full quote
I do think that pausing further capabilities once we have human-ish-level AIs for even just a few years while we focus on safety would massively improve the situation. This currently seems unlikely to happen.

Ryan Greenblatt · 2025 · full quote
Between 2030 and 2035, we scale within the human range, to AIs that are roughly as capable as top human experts... In 2035, we pause at top-human-expert level AI in order to maintain human control. In 2040, we unpause and scale to superintelligence.

AI Futures Project · Jul 9, 2026 · full quote

Time for alignment and society

Supporters say delaying superintelligence buys time for alignment research, safety measures, societal structures, and defenders to catch up with rapid progress. They present a pause or slowdown as a way to avoid rushing through a period when humanity is not ready.

If you delay the advent of superintelligence, then that gives society more time to prepare and more time to solve the various problems that it represents.

Daniel Kokotajlo · Jul 9, 2026 · full quote
We believe it would be good for the world to have the option to slow or temporarily pause frontier AI development to enable societal structures and alignment research to keep up with the advance of the technology.

Anthropic · Jun 4, 2026 · full quote
One goal of such an organization should be to make it possible for the world to take coordinated action, including slowing frontier development when needed, so societal resilience, safety, and alignment can keep pace.

OpenAI · Jun 8, 2026 · full quote
I think that what we want to do as a society, if we gain confidence that we’re at the starting point of this intelligence explosion, is to redirect as much of that AI labour as we can from further AI R&D to things that could help protect us from future generations of AIs — both i…

Ajeya Cotra · Oct 20, 2025 · full quote
We must all seriously consider the lead-time required for defenders to be ready for the frontier.

Thomas Neil James Shadwell · Jul 2026 · full quote
As Melvin Kranzberg wrote, technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral. Achieving societal benefit depends on understanding the interdependent ways in which many humans use advanced AI systems in concert, understanding that takes time to acquire. Pacing progress towards…

Edward Hughes · Jul 2026 · full quote

Coordination against the race

Many supporters argue the core problem is competitive pressure: no individual actor wants to stop unilaterally even as automated AI research could accelerate progress beyond our ability to understand or steer it. They therefore call for international coordination and technical and governance tools to deliberately pace the frontier.

The world is locked in a deadly race towards an intelligence explosion, where AI’s ability to create better AIs reaches a critical point, just like a runaway nuclear chain reaction. Going slower would give us much-needed time to make it go well, but no individual actor is willing…

Leo Gao · Jul 2026 · full quote
We request that the U.S. government support an international effort to develop the technical and governance tools needed to deliberately pace the frontier of automated AI development.”

Pacing the Frontier · Jul 2026 · full quote
Signed because this statement helps establish common knowledge about the possible need for coordination mechanisms as automated AI research accelerates progress. I'd also like to see labs start designing these mechanisms voluntarily, even before the USG gets involved.

John Schulman · Jul 2026 · full quote
As someone who works on recursive self-improvement and automated evaluation, I sign this because the diagnosis is right and the ask is refreshingly humble: pace, not pause. The phrase that matters is "automating AI research": that's the point where systems start improving themsel…

Leo He · Jul 2026 · full quote
Unless we change companies' default incentives, I worry about a race on AI R&D going much faster than is ideal for safety. International coordination via the government is necessary; we need to have a real slowdown option.

Jasmine Wang · Jul 2026 · full quote
It is now a foregone conclusion that the development of AI will bring about some of the most consequential changes to societies in the coming decades. International coordination is essential to bring about the most ideal future that broadly benefits all of humanity. Building the …

Austin Han · Jul 2026 · full quote

Keep benefits without full halt

This line argues that society can keep developing useful, controllable AI tools while refusing to rush into smarter-than-human systems that are not yet demonstrably safe. In these quotes, a targeted pause or safety requirement is framed as more compatible with human-centered benefits than either an unchecked race or a blanket stop on all AI.

This is not a ban or even a moratorium in the usual sense. It’s simply a proposal to require adequate safety measures for a technology that, according to its developers, has a significant chance to cause human extinction. Is that too much to ask?

Stuart J. Russell · Mar 27, 2026 · full quote
We should rapidly develop powerful AI tools that help cure diseases and solve practical problems, but not autonomous smarter-than-human machines that nobody knows how to control. Creating superintelligent machines is not only unacceptably dangerous and immoral, but also completel…

Johnnie Moore · Mar 27, 2026 · full quote
Superintelligence would likely break the very operating system of human civilization – and is completely unnecessary. If we instead focus on building controllable AI tools to help real people today, we can far more reliably and safely realize AI’s incredible benefits.

Yuval Noah Harari · Mar 27, 2026 · full quote
If we race to build superintelligence without clear and morally informed parameters, we risk undermining the incredible potential AI has to alleviate suffering and enable flourishing. We should intentionally harness this amazing technology to help people, not rush to build machin…

Walter Kim · Mar 27, 2026 · full quote
To get the most from what AI has to offer mankind, there is simply no need to reach for the unknowable and highly risky goal of superintelligence, which is by far a frontier too far. By definition this would result in a power that we could neither understand nor control.

Stephen Fry · Mar 27, 2026 · full quote

Arguments against

Impractical in competition

Opponents argue that asking labs or governments to slow AI is not practical or enforceable in a competitive global environment where others will keep advancing. In this view, self-imposed slowdown brings major strategic and innovation costs and may leave the restraining actors worse off.

But the idea of asking AI labs to slow down just doesn't seem practical or implementable to me. Especially in this frankly competitive business environment with labs and countries trying to build advanced technologies and creating a lot of value. And the only thing worse than tha…

Andrew Ng · Apr 9, 2023 · full quote
I would also say the development of this technology is a national security priority, and it seems really hard to... it seems like a really big cost to impose something where we would self-consciously slow ourselves down when others are not doing that. [...] I think it’s very poss…

Dean W. Ball · Nov 21, 2025 · full quote
Regardless of what policies the U.S. adopts, the technology of large AI systems is going to continue to advance at a global level. It is far better for the U.S. to remain at the forefront of AI—advancing the state of the art, and using that knowledge to better identify and mitiga…

John Villasenor · Apr 11, 2023 · full quote
Big AI companies should be allowed to build AI as fast and aggressively as they can [...] Startup AI companies should be allowed to build AI as fast and aggressively as they can. [...] Open source AI should be allowed to freely proliferate and compete with both big AI companies a…

Marc Andreessen · Jun 6, 2023 · full quote

Research should keep advancing

Some critics say slowing research and development itself is misguided, because advancing knowledge helps society understand risks and build better systems. They prefer staying at the technological frontier and focusing regulation on products or concrete harms rather than pausing frontier research.

Well, my first reaction to this is that calling for a delay in research and development smacks me of a new wave of obscurantism, essentially, like why slow down the progress of knowledge and science? Then there is the question of products, like, you know, I'm all for regulating p…

Yann LeCun · Apr 9, 2023 · full quote
Regardless of what policies the U.S. adopts, the technology of large AI systems is going to continue to advance at a global level. It is far better for the U.S. to remain at the forefront of AI—advancing the state of the art, and using that knowledge to better identify and mitiga…

John Villasenor · Apr 11, 2023 · full quote
Because the point of AI safety is not to slow the future down. It is to make sure the future remains human, aligned with our values, and advancing our interests.

Andrew Charlton · Jul 7, 2026 · full quote

If pausing, then fully

Another anti line rejects the idea that a temporary pause at human-genius level is the safest middle path. These quotes call for default pausing, an indefinite worldwide moratorium, or a prohibition on superintelligence until safety and public buy-in are established.

The default should be pausing, and we should have the possibility of never unpausing from frontier AI development.

Holly Elmore · Feb 6, 2026 · full quote
The moratorium on new large training runs needs to be indefinite and worldwide. There can be no exceptions, including for governments or militaries. [...] Shut down all the large GPU clusters (the large computer farms where the most powerful AIs are refined). Shut down all the la…

Eliezer Yudkowsky · Apr 7, 2023 · full quote
We call for a prohibition on the development of superintelligence, not lifted before there is (1) broad scientific consensus that it will be done safely and controllably, and (2) strong public buy-in.

Statement on Superintelligence · Sep 22, 2025 · full quote

Pause may backfire

Some critics say advocates of a moratorium carry a heavy burden of proof and that a pause could itself increase the risk of catastrophically bad outcomes. For them, slowdown is not only costly but potentially counterproductive.

Should we lobby governments to impose a moratorium on AI research? Since we don’t enforce pauses on most new technologies, I hope the reader will grant that the burden of proof is on those who advocate for such a moratorium. We should only advocate for such heavy-handed governmen…

Nora Belrose · Oct 23, 2023 · full quote
I would also say the development of this technology is a national security priority, and it seems really hard to... it seems like a really big cost to impose something where we would self-consciously slow ourselves down when others are not doing that. [...] I think it’s very poss…

Dean W. Ball · Nov 21, 2025 · full quote
But the idea of asking AI labs to slow down just doesn't seem practical or implementable to me. Especially in this frankly competitive business environment with labs and countries trying to build advanced technologies and creating a lot of value. And the only thing worse than tha…

Andrew Ng · Apr 9, 2023 · full quote

Middle ground

Optional slowdown, not fixed trigger

Some supportive quotes do not commit to a fixed pause point; instead they emphasize having a credible option to slow or temporarily pause frontier development when safety evidence, alignment work, or institutions are not keeping up. They describe pace control as a safety net that should be built before it is urgently needed.

We believe it would be good for the world to have the option to slow or temporarily pause frontier AI development to enable societal structures and alignment research to keep up with the advance of the technology.

Anthropic · Jun 4, 2026 · full quote
We believe it would be good for the world to have the option to slow or temporarily pause frontier AI development to enable societal structures and alignment research to keep up with the advance of the technology. The Anthropic Institute will conduct research—in collaboration wit…

Anthropic Institute · Jun 2026 · full quote
The RSP aims to make it consistently the case that our model training and deployment meets a high, clearly-specified bar for safety and that there is publicly accessible evidence that we have met this bar. Roughly speaking, we run tests (‘frontier risk evaluations’) meant to asse…

Sam Bowman · Sep 3, 2024 · full quote
AI labs put out RSP commitments to stop scaling when particular capabilities benchmarks are hit, resuming only when they are able to hit particular safety/alignment/security targets. [...] For later capabilities levels, however, it is explicit in all RSPs that we do not yet know …

Evan Hubinger · Oct 14, 2023 · full quote
Whether or not automated AI research accelerates as sharply as some expect, the option requested here is valuable. How fast and how widely capability spreads should be a deliberate choice, made on evidence, rather than a side effect of competitive pressure. Regulators and R&D org…

Clare Birch · Jul 2026 · full quote
There are a wide diversity of opinions on where AI progress goes next and what the future looks like, but regardless of one's beliefs, the option to control the pace of progress if we end up in one of the bad scenarios seems like an incredibly valuable safety net to have in our b…

Mike Lambert · Jul 2026 · full quote

Conditional on global execution

Several supporters add that pacing only works if it is internationally coordinated and implemented well. They warn that a bad, fragile, or one-sided implementation could fail or even make things worse.

Future AI will be extraordinarily powerful compared to anything that exists today, and dealing with this future power will require unprecedented measures, such as the ones described here. The problem statement is real. This works only if it is done internationally, and it has to …

Ilya Sutskever · Jul 2026 · full quote
It is now a foregone conclusion that the development of AI will bring about some of the most consequential changes to societies in the coming decades. International coordination is essential to bring about the most ideal future that broadly benefits all of humanity. Building the …

Austin Han · Jul 2026 · full quote
Unless we change companies' default incentives, I worry about a race on AI R&D going much faster than is ideal for safety. International coordination via the government is necessary; we need to have a real slowdown option.

Jasmine Wang · Jul 2026 · full quote
We can capture the benefits of the coming intelligence explosion while managing its risks, but only if we build the tools to pace the frontier of the riskiest capabilities before we need them [...]

Jasjeet Sekhon · Jul 2026 · full quote
As someone who works on recursive self-improvement and automated evaluation, I sign this because the diagnosis is right and the ask is refreshingly humble: pace, not pause. The phrase that matters is "automating AI research": that's the point where systems start improving themsel…

Leo He · Jul 2026 · full quote

Insights

Many supportive quotes explicitly distinguish a targeted frontier pause or slowdown from a blanket ban on all AI development.
A recurring pro premise is that near-human or top-expert systems may be strong enough to help solve alignment before an intelligence explosion makes control harder.
Opposition is divided between people who think slowing is infeasible or harmful and people who think only a much stronger halt is safe.
Many of the July 2026 supportive quotes from employees or researchers at major AI organizations focus on international mechanisms to pace automated AI research.
Across the quotes, control is a shared concern, but speakers disagree sharply about whether control is best preserved by pausing, by staying at the frontier, or by prohibiting superintelligence altogether.

Most supportive quotes treat the proposal as a middle path: reach a highly capable but still controllable AI regime, use it to improve alignment and institutions, and rely on coordination to avoid racing through that window. The opposition does not converge on one alternative: some reject pauses as unworkable or anti-innovation, while others argue a temporary pause is too permissive and that superintelligence should be halted more decisively. The live dispute is therefore about feasibility, timing, and whether a controllable plateau near human-level capability really exists.

Cast your vote:

Results (64 votes):

Total (64 votes)

For 55 (86%) Abstain 0 (0%) Against 9 (14%)

For (52)

Brendan Halstead
AI Futures Project researcher writing on AI takeoff modeling and Plan A capability trajectories.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Unlike all other actors we model, the consortium is not racing to build better AIs as fast as they possibly can. The specific strategies are discussed in more detail in the Capabilities Scaling Strategy supplement, but at a high level, the strategy i...
more AI Verified source (Jul 10, 2026)

added 29d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Eli Lifland
AI Futures Project researcher writing on AI capability scaling, controlled takeoff, and comparative AI governance plans.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

In the Plan A scenario, why does the Consortium choose to steadily increase capabilities until reaching top-expert-dominating AI (TED-AI) in 2035, then slow down nearly to a pause until handing off to these AIs in 2040? [...] Scale until you’re close...
more AI Verified source (Jul 10, 2026)

added 29d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Daniel Kokotajlo
AI Futures Project founder

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

If you delay the advent of superintelligence, then that gives society more time to prepare and more time to solve the various problems that it represents.
AI Verified source (Jul 9, 2026)

added 20d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
AI Futures Project
Nonprofit AI forecasting research group behind AI 2027 and Plan A; led by Daniel Kokotajlo.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Between 2030 and 2035, we scale within the human range, to AIs that are roughly as capable as top human experts... In 2035, we pause at top-human-expert level AI in order to maintain human control. In 2040, we unpause and scale to superintelligence.
AI Verified source (Jul 9, 2026)

added 29d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Scott Alexander
Author and psychiatrist

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Then, in the mid-2030s, they pause at AIs around the level of top human geniuses. These AIs are close enough to current AIs that the same alignment techniques that mostly-sort-of-work for ours might mostly-sort-of-work for them too... The plan is to ...
more AI Verified source (Jul 9, 2026)

added 29d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Pacing the Frontier
A July 2026 open statement by more than 1,100 current and former frontier-AI employees calling for international technical and governance capacity to deliberately pace automated AI development.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

We request that the U.S. government support an international effort to develop the technical and governance tools needed to deliberately pace the frontier of automated AI development.”
AI Verified source (Jul 2026)

added 3d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Jasjeet Sekhon
Chief Strategy Officer at Google DeepMind; commenter on the July 2026 Pacing the Frontier statement.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

We can capture the benefits of the coming intelligence explosion while managing its risks, but only if we build the tools to pace the frontier of the riskiest capabilities before we need them [...]
AI Verified source (Jul 2026)

added 3d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Edward Hughes
Chief Scientist at Inherent; AI researcher.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

As Melvin Kranzberg wrote, technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral. Achieving societal benefit depends on understanding the interdependent ways in which many humans use advanced AI systems in concert, understanding that takes time to ac...
more AI Verified source (Jul 2026)

added 3d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Will Yager
AI researcher at Anthropic.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Like splitting the atom, AI holds the potential for both immense benefit and immense risk. The world should take the time to do this right.
AI Verified source (Jul 2026)

added 3d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Matthew Rahtz
Staff Research Engineer at Google; AI capability-evaluation researcher.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Even after 3 years working on AI capability evaluations, the recent pace of progress has been a shock. To avoid catastrophic harms from AGI, we need much, much better coordination.
AI Verified source (Jul 2026)

added 3d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Leo Gao
Member of Technical Staff at OpenAI; AI researcher.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

The world is locked in a deadly race towards an intelligence explosion, where AI’s ability to create better AIs reaches a critical point, just like a runaway nuclear chain reaction. Going slower would give us much-needed time to make it go well, but ...
more AI Verified source (Jul 2026)

added 3d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Laura Weidinger
Staff Research Scientist at Google; AI researcher.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

If it's true that AI will be as transformational as electricity, we better be intentional about how it is introduced to the world. A mindless race without assurances on governance, safety or the technology serving the public interest stands in the wa...
more AI Verified source (Jul 2026)

added 3d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Ilya Sutskever
AI researcher, co-founder and former former chief scientist at OpenAI

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Future AI will be extraordinarily powerful compared to anything that exists today, and dealing with this future power will require unprecedented measures, such as the ones described here. The problem statement is real. This works only if it is done i...
more AI Verified source (Jul 2026)

added 3d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Shengjia Zhao
Chief Scientist at Meta AI; artificial-intelligence researcher.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

AI is progressing at a rate that our society might not be ready for. Frontier labs are very close to AI that can exceed even the best people on almost every metric of intelligence. This will lead to unprecedented social and safety risks. To ensure a ...
more AI Verified source (Jul 2026)

added 3d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
John Schulman
Chief Scientist at Thinking Machines; AI researcher and cofounder of OpenAI.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Signed because this statement helps establish common knowledge about the possible need for coordination mechanisms as automated AI research accelerates progress. I'd also like to see labs start designing these mechanisms voluntarily, even before the ...
more AI Verified source (Jul 2026)

added 3d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
OpenAI
AI research organization

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

One goal of such an organization should be to make it possible for the world to take coordinated action, including slowing frontier development when needed, so societal resilience, safety, and alignment can keep pace.
AI Verified source (Jun 8, 2026)

added 19d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Anthony Aguirre
Physicist; Future of Life cofounder

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

We are approaching a runaway to superintelligence that could threaten our shared human future. Both publicly and privately, AI companies are recognizing that a pause or slowdown in certain developmental pathways is crucial to protect lives and liveli...
more AI Verified source (Jun 8, 2026)

added 21d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Anthropic
AI safety research company

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

We believe it would be good for the world to have the option to slow or temporarily pause frontier AI development to enable societal structures and alignment research to keep up with the advance of the technology.
AI Verified source (Jun 4, 2026)

added 19d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Anthropic Institute
Anthropic policy and research institute studying AI capabilities, governance, and societal impacts.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

We believe it would be good for the world to have the option to slow or temporarily pause frontier AI development to enable societal structures and alignment research to keep up with the advance of the technology. The Anthropic Institute will conduct...
more AI Verified source (Jun 2026)

added 29d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Will MacAskill
Philosopher; effective altruism cofounder; researcher at Forethought Centre for AI Strategy

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

First let’s talk about pause at human level — that’s a phrase from Ryan Greenblatt. So that’s when we’re at the point of time of AI engaging in AI R&D, at this point of time when things perhaps go even faster, should we at that point be trying to slo...
more AI Verified source (Apr 22, 2026)

added 21d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Mark Beall
President of Government Affairs at the AI Policy Network.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

When AI researchers warn of extinction and tech leaders build doomsday bunkers, prudence demands we listen. Superintelligence without proper safeguards could be the ultimate expression of human hubris—power without moral restraint.
AI Verified source (Mar 27, 2026)

added 6d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Jon Wolfsthal
American security analyst

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

The discussion over AGI should not be cast as a struggle between so called doomers and optimists. AGI presents a common challenge for all of humanity. We must to ensure we control technology and it does not control us. Until and unless developers and...
more AI Verified source (Mar 27, 2026)

added 6d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Yuval Noah Harari
Israeli historian and professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Superintelligence would likely break the very operating system of human civilization – and is completely unnecessary. If we instead focus on building controllable AI tools to help real people today, we can far more reliably and safely realize AI’s in...
more AI Verified source (Mar 27, 2026)

added 6d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Walter Kim
Korean American evangelical pastor and president of the National Association of Evangelicals.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

If we race to build superintelligence without clear and morally informed parameters, we risk undermining the incredible potential AI has to alleviate suffering and enable flourishing. We should intentionally harness this amazing technology to help pe...
more AI Verified source (Mar 27, 2026)

added 6d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Stuart J. Russell
AI Expert and Professor

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

This is not a ban or even a moratorium in the usual sense. It’s simply a proposal to require adequate safety measures for a technology that, according to its developers, has a significant chance to cause human extinction. Is that too much to ask?
AI Verified source (Mar 27, 2026)

added 6d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Joseph Gordon-Levitt
American actor and entrepreneur

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Yeah, we want specific AI tools that can help cure diseases, strengthen national security, etc. But does AI also need to imitate humans, groom our kids, turn us all into slop junkies and make zillions of dollars serving ads? Most people don’t want th...
more AI Verified source (Mar 27, 2026)

added 6d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Johnnie Moore
American evangelical leader and businessman, founder of The Kairos Company and chairman of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

We should rapidly develop powerful AI tools that help cure diseases and solve practical problems, but not autonomous smarter-than-human machines that nobody knows how to control. Creating superintelligent machines is not only unacceptably dangerous a...
more AI Verified source (Mar 27, 2026)

added 6d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Mary Robinson
Former Irish president; Elders chair

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

AI offers extraordinary promise to advance human rights, tackle inequality, and protect our planet, but the pursuit of superintelligence threatens to undermine the very foundations of our common humanity. We must act with both ambition and responsibi...
more AI Verified source (Mar 27, 2026)

added 6d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Stephen Fry
British writer, comedian and actor

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

To get the most from what AI has to offer mankind, there is simply no need to reach for the unknowable and highly risky goal of superintelligence, which is by far a frontier too far. By definition this would result in a power that we could neither un...
more AI Verified source (Mar 27, 2026)

added 6d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate

Abstain (0)

Against (9)

Andrew Charlton
Australian Assistant Minister for Science, Technology and the Digital Economy

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes Against and says:

Because the point of AI safety is not to slow the future down. It is to make sure the future remains human, aligned with our values, and advancing our interests.
AI Verified source (Jul 7, 2026)

added 21d ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate

Loading more opinions...

More h/ai-safety votes

Mandate reporting of AI training runs above 10²⁶ FLOPs to a designated national or international authority

The U.S. and China should establish Mutually Assured Compute Destruction

States should retain the right to set stricter AI safety standards than the federal government

AGI could make governments subordinate to the companies that develop it

Ban open source AI models capable of creating WMDs

Back