Svmuu News: Vitalik posted on X, stating that AI 2040 and its critics hold incompatible worldviews regarding the pace and significance of AI progress. AI 2040 posits that, unless strong measures are taken to prevent it entirely, some form of superintelligence will emerge in various scenarios by 2040; critics argue that AI 2040 underestimates humanity’s ability to coordinate and poses a threat to freedom, but do not view ASI itself as a risk of power concentration. Vitalik noted that if he were convinced that AI in its current form is merely ordinary technology, he would lean more toward the critics’ camp; if he were convinced that superintelligence would inevitably arrive by 2030, he would lean more toward the AI 2040 camp. He noted that, given the high level of uncertainty, he remains open to the idea of slowing down or pausing development, while expressing discomfort with the stance taken by some major AI companies and intellectuals—namely, that “open source is detrimental, and the ideal outcome is for our side to hold global, controlling dominance.” Vitalik stated that a key reason for his support of the d/acc platform is that areas such as formal verification, cryptography, secure and open hardware, pandemic resilience, defensive biotechnology, food and basic resource security, public cognitive systems, and decentralized physical security are worth pursuing under both worldviews. He also noted that the 2040 Plan has become more supportive of open source and incorporates the concept of “mutually assured computational destruction,” which represents an improvement over allowing a small number of participants to selectively deprive others of their rights. Vitalik stated that there is no solution that avoids trade-offs regarding whether to slow down or pause the project; trigger conditions can be predefined, and when sufficient conditions are met within a specific timeframe, one can maintain a more open attitude toward slowing down or pausing. He also said that if he were Elon Musk or Zuck, he would overhaul Twitter more drastically to transform it into a platform that helps identify and facilitate such large-scale win-win agreements, enabling more people to participate in the discussion—though he acknowledged that this might also be naive. Currently, he does not see any non-naive ASI transition plans, so he tends to be somewhat tolerant of those who are trying.