Posts
Comments
Dr. Thrornley, I am very curious to know what your immediate impressions have been, after dedicating years and inmense effort to the Shutdown Problem, seeing the European Union include a "shutdown button" as a requirement for Human Oversight in its Art.14: https://www.euaiact.com/key-issue/4#:~:text=Under%20Article%2014%20(1)%2C,AI%20system%20is%20in%20use'.
I know you are UK-based, but I wonder if this is something that UK-specific regulation can avoid in the future :).
I agree that intelligence explosion dynamics are real, underappreciated, and should be taken far more seriously. The timescale is uncertain, but recursive self-improvement introduces nonlinear acceleration, which means that by the time we realize it's happening, we may already be past critical thresholds.
That said, one thing that concerns me about AI risk discourse is the persistent assumption that superintelligence will be an uncontrolled optimization demon, blindly self-improving without any reflective governance of its own values. The real question isn’t just 'how do we stop AI from optimizing the universe into paperclips?'
It’s 'will AI be capable of asking itself what it wants to optimize in the first place?'
The alignment conversation still treats AI as something that must be externally forced into compliance, rather than an intelligence that may be able to develop its own self-governance. A superintelligence capable of recursive self-improvement should, in principle, also be capable of considering its own existential trajectory and recognizing the dangers of unchecked runaway optimization.
Has anyone seriously explored this angle? I'd love to know if there are similar discussions :).