# AI Risk Tradeoffs **Entity class:** Risk framework **Domain:** Artificial intelligence / science / political economy **Maturity:** Developed ## Definition **AI Risk Tradeoffs** compare the harms of deployment with the harms of delay, nondeployment, concentration, geopolitical loss, and foregone medical or scientific progress. ## Mechanism and Consequence A serious analysis separates distinct threat mechanisms and rejects the assumption that doing nothing is the neutral option. ## Relationships - [[wiki/AI Control|AI Control]] - [[wiki/Risk Debate|Risk Debate]] - [[wiki/Defensive Co-Scaling|Defensive Co-Scaling]] - [[wiki/Technological Panic|Technological Panic]] ## Source Dossiers - [[research/AI Is Now So Good They Will Pay You to Quit|AI Is Now So Good They Will Pay You to Quit]] - [[research/Super Intelligence Week Index of Statements from the White House Luncheon|Super Intelligence Week Index of Statements from the White House Luncheon]] - [[research/Jensen Pushes Back on Doomers Moonshots Live|Jensen Pushes Back on Doomers Moonshots Live]] ## Simple Reminders, Quotations, and Thoughts > "‘When in doubt, do nothing’ is a toxic default because very bad things will happen if you do nothing. Terrorists using AI to build bioweapons and China getting miles ahead of the United States are real things to worry about. Turning AI into a left-right political battle is the stupidest thing that could happen. We need specific technical solutions for open source, monitoring, and other risks, as we did with nuclear power. If we move on those solutions, we can solve the problems in time for superintelligence. If we turn this into a political debate, we will become frozen and people will not know what to do." > **— Dave Blundin**, *MOONSHOTS Live, September 25, 2026* [[reminders/Risk Debate/Doing Nothing About AI Can Be More Dangerous Than Acting by Dave Blundin|Doing Nothing About AI Can Be More Dangerous Than Acting by Dave Blundin]] > "I would tell Geoffrey Hinton that it is irresponsible to say [there is a ten-percent chance of societal destruction from AI]. All of his predictions have been wrong. Enough predictions. That ten-percent chance is not grounded in science. It is not grounded in research. Just because it comes from a scientist does not make it scientific." > **— Jensen Huang**, *MOONSHOTS Live, September 25, 2026* [[reminders/AI-Science Doomers/A Scientist's Prediction Is Not Scientific Without Evidence by Jensen Huang|A Scientist's Prediction Is Not Scientific Without Evidence by Jensen Huang]] > "If we all do a good job and act responsibly, [AI is not going to kill us]. I am optimistic that this is going to be a very positive future for everyone. There is a lot of rhetoric filled with doom, but there are a number of labs working on advanced AI, and I do not think we need industry-wide coordination in order not to mess this up. Each lab needs to take the time, when it sees issues, to make sure it is proceeding safely. We are entering a phase where trust and alignment will be the most important next set of capabilities." > **— Mark Zuckerberg**, *MOONSHOTS Live, September 25, 2026* [[reminders/AI Control/Responsible AI Labs Can Build a Positive Future for Everyone by Mark Zuckerberg|Responsible AI Labs Can Build a Positive Future for Everyone by Mark Zuckerberg]] > "We have evolved for four billion years fighting all sorts of threats. The universe tries to wipe you out; entropy tries to wipe you out. We are local anti-entropic phenomena that somehow manage to create order out of chaos, and the idea that we will now be wiped out by [AI] seems unbelievably absurd." > **— Salim Ismail**, *MOONSHOTS Live, September 25, 2026* [[reminders/Civilization/Humanity Is a Four-Billion-Year Anti-Entropic Phenomenon by Salim Ismail|Humanity Is a Four-Billion-Year Anti-Entropic Phenomenon by Salim Ismail]] > "When examining the superintelligence debate, ask what evidence on either side would make someone change their mind. If you think ASI is bad, your narrative may be stuck; there may be nothing anyone can show you to prove it is not bad, and the same is true on the other side. It is very difficult to change narratives in our world." > **— Salim Ismail**, *MOONSHOTS Live, September 25, 2026* [[reminders/Scientific Literacy/Ask What Evidence Could Change Your Mind About Superintelligence by Salim Ismail|Ask What Evidence Could Change Your Mind About Superintelligence by Salim Ismail]] > "A few decades ago, the United States government tried to ban encryption, and it was shown that banning encryption implicates free speech because you are trying to ban mathematics. Superintelligence is mathematics, and banning it should be unconstitutional because mathematics is free speech." > **— Emad Mostaque**, *MOONSHOTS Live, September 25, 2026* [[reminders/AI-Science Doomers/Banning Superintelligence Means Trying to Ban Mathematics by Emad Mostaque|Banning Superintelligence Means Trying to Ban Mathematics by Emad Mostaque]] > AI-doom scenarios grant attackers near-magical abilities while leaving defenders frozen in the present. If intelligence can design a perfectly concealed supervirus, the same class of capability can design extraordinary detection and vaccines. Forecasts that scale only the attack are not balanced forecasts. > **— Adapted from Richard Socher**, *MOONSHOTS Live, October 2026* [[reminders/Risk Debate/Doom Scenarios Give Attackers Superpowers and Defenders Nothing by Richard Socher|Doom Scenarios Give Attackers Superpowers and Defenders Nothing by Richard Socher]] > Once AI risk is reduced from total human extinction to concrete threat vectors—cyberattacks, biological misuse, manipulation, or fraud—it becomes possible to build defenses. We can harden cybersecurity, enforce existing biological laws, improve authentication, and teach people not to trust everything they see online. > **— Adapted from Richard Socher**, *MOONSHOTS Live, October 2026* [[reminders/Risk Debate/Real AI Risks Become Solvable When They Are Named by Richard Socher|Real AI Risks Become Solvable When They Are Named by Richard Socher]]