AGI Strategies

compare

Two strategies, side by side.

Pick any two strategies. See who endorses each, the tier mix of endorsers, the p(doom) distribution, and which people endorse both. Useful for asking are these strategies actually opposed, or does this disagreement live in builders, in policy, or in the public square.

Stance defaults to live engagement: endorses, mixed, conditional, or evolved-toward. These are people who treat the strategy as a live bet of theirs at any time. Opposers are listed separately.

Pause

23 endorsers · 0 oppose

Halt frontier training until alignment catches up

expertise mix

Builds frontier systems
0
Deep ML / safety technical
4
Applied or adjacent technical
1
Governance, policy, strategy
5
Expert in another field
4
Public-square commentator
6

recognition mix

Mass-public recognition
8
Known across the AI/safety field
9
Recognised inside subfield
3
Newer or less central voice
0

profiled

20/23

mean p(doom)

50%

n=9

quotes

36

Existential primacy

76 endorsers · 0 oppose

Extinction/disempowerment risk overrides ordinary cost-benefit

expertise mix

Builds frontier systems
10
Deep ML / safety technical
13
Applied or adjacent technical
2
Governance, policy, strategy
13
Expert in another field
9
Public-square commentator
5

recognition mix

Mass-public recognition
20
Known across the AI/safety field
25
Recognised inside subfield
7
Newer or less central voice
0

profiled

52/76

mean p(doom)

28%

n=11

quotes

110

where the disagreement lives

Tier shares within profiled endorsers. Positive shift means the tier is over-represented in Pause; negative means it's over-represented in Existential primacy.

Pause skews these tiers

  • Commentator+20pp

Existential primacy skews these tiers

  • Frontier builder+19pp
mean p(doom)Pause: 50% (n=9)vsExistential primacy: 28% (n=11)Δ +22.2%