Y'all are over-complicating these AI-risk arguments

let me tell you a story about aliens

dynomight.net/ai-risk

Say an alien spaceship is headed for Earth. It has 30 aliens on it. The aliens are weak and small. They have no weapons and carry no diseases. They breed at rates similar to humans. They are bringing no new technology. No other ships are coming. There’s no trick—except that they each have an IQ of 300. Would you find that concerning?

Of course, the aliens might be great. They might cure cancer and help us reach world peace and higher consciousness. But would you be sure they’d be great?

Suppose you were worried about the aliens but I scoffed, “Tell me specifically how the aliens would hurt us. They’re small and weak! They can’t do anything unless we let them.” Would you find that counter-argument convincing?

I claim that most people would be concerned about the arrival of the aliens, would not be sure that their arrival would be good, and would not find that counter-argument convincing.

I bring this up because most AI-risk arguments I see go something like this:

1. There will be a fast takeoff in AI capabilities.

2. Due to alignment difficulty and orthogonality, it will pursue dangerous convergent subgoals.

3. These will give the AI a decisive strategic advantage, making it uncontainable and resulting in catastrophe.

These arguments have always struck me as overcomplicated. So I’d like to submit the following undercomplicated alternative:

1. Obviously, if an alien race with IQs of 300 were going to arrive on Earth soon, that would be concerning.

2. In the next few decades, it’s entirely possible that AI with an IQ of 300 will arrive. Really, that might actually happen.

3. No one knows what AI with an IQ of 300 would be like. So it might as well be an alien.

Our subject for today is: Why might one prefer one of these arguments to the other?

The case for the simple argument

The obvious reason to prefer the simple argument is that it’s more likely to be true. The complex argument has a lot of steps. Personally, I think they’re all individually plausible. But are we really confident that there will be a fast takeoff in AI capabilities and that the AI will pursue dangerous subgoals and that it will thereby gain a decisive strategic advantage?

I find that confidence unreasonable. I’ve often been puzzled why so many seemingly-reasonable people will discuss these arguments without rejecting the confidence.

I think the explanation is that there are implicitly two versions of the complex argument. The “strong” version claims that fast takeoff et al. will happen, while the “weak” version merely claims that it’s a plausible scenario that we should take seriously. It’s often hard to tell which version people are endorsing.

The distinction is crucial, because these two version have have different weaknesses. I find the strong version wildly overconfident. I agree with the weak version, but I still think it’s unsatisfying.

Say you think there’s a >50% chance things do not go as suggested by the complex argument. Maybe there’s a slow takeoff, or maybe the AI can’t build a decisive strategic advantage, whatever. Now what?

Well, maybe everything turns out great and you live for millions of years, exploring the galaxy, reading poetry, meditating, and eating pie. That would be nice. But it also seems possible that humanity still ends up screwed, just in a different way. The complex argument doesn’t speak to what happens when one of the steps fails. This might give the impression that without any of the steps, everything is fine. But that is not the case.

The simple argument is also more convincing. Partly I think that’s because—well—it’s easier to convince people of things when they’re true. But beyond that, the simple argument doesn’t require any new concepts or abstractions, and it leverages our existing intuitions for how more intelligent entities can be dangerous in unexpected ways.

I actually prefer the simple argument in an inverted form: If you claim that there is no AI-risk, then which of the following bullets do you want to bite?

1. “If a race of aliens with an IQ of 300 came to Earth, that would definitely be fine.”

2. “There’s no way that AI with an IQ of 300 will arrive within the next few decades.”

3. “We know some special property that AI will definitely have that will definitely prevent all possible bad outcomes that aliens might cause.”

I think all those bullets are unbiteable. Hence, I think AI-risk is real.

But if you make the complex argument, then you seem to be left with the burden of arguing for fast takeoff and alignment difficulty and so on. People who hear that argument also often demand an explanation of just how AI could hurt people (“Nanotechnology? Bioweapons? What kind of bioweapon?”) I think this is a mistake for the same reason it would be a mistake to demand to know how a car accident would happen before putting on your seatbelt. As long as the Complex Scenario is possible, it’s a risk we need to manage. But many people don’t look at things that way.

But I think the biggest advantage of the simple argument is something else: It reveals the crux of disagreement.

I’ve talked to many people who find the complex argument completely implausible. Since I think it is plausible—just not a sure thing—I often ask why. People give widely varying reasons. Some claim that alignment will be easy, some that AI will never really be an “agent”, some talk about the dangers of evolved vs. engineered systems, and some have technical arguments based on NP-hardness or the nature of consciousness.

I’ve never made much progress convincing these people to change their minds. I have succeeded in convincing some people that certain arguments don’t work. (For example, I’ve convinced people that NP-hardness and the nature of consciousness are probably irrelevant.) But when people abandon those arguments, they don’t turn around and accept the whole Scenario as plausible. They just switch to different objections.

So I started giving my simple argument instead. When I did this, here’s what I discovered: None of these people actually accept that AI with an IQ of 300 could happen.

Sure, they often say that they accept this. But if you pin them down, they’re inevitably picturing an AI that lacks some core human capability. Often, the AI can prove theorems or answer questions, but it’s not an “agent” that wants things and does stuff and has relationships and makes long-term plans.

So I conjecture that this is the crux of the issue with AI-risk. People who truly accept that AI with an IQ of 300 and all human capabilities may appear are almost always at least somewhat worried about AI-risk. And people who are not worried about AI-risk almost always don’t truly accept that AI with an IQ of 300 could appear. If that’s the crux, then we should get to it as quickly as possible. And that’s done by the simple argument.

The case for the complex argument

I won’t claim to be neutral. As hinted by the title, I started writing this post intending to make the case for the simple argument, and I still think that case is strong. But I figured I should consider arguments for the other side and—there are some good ones.

Above, I suggested that there are two versions of the complex argument: A “strong” version that claims the scenario it lays out will definitely happen, and a “weak” version that merely claims it’s plausible. I rejected the strong version as overconfident. And I rejected the weak version because there are lots of other scenarios where things could also go wrong for humanity, so why give this one so much focus?

Well, there’s also a middle version of the complex argument: You could claim that the scenario it lays out is not certain, but that if things go wrong for humanity, then they will probably go wrong as in that scenario. This avoids both of my objections—it’s less overconfident, and it gives a good reason to focus on this particular scenario.

Personally, I don’t buy it, because I think other bad scenarios like gradual disempowerment are plausible. But maybe I’m wrong. It doesn’t seem crazy to claim that the Complex Scenario captures most of the probability mass of bad outcomes. And if that’s true, I want to know it.

Now, some people suggest favoring certain arguments for the sake of optics: Even if you accept the complex argument, maybe you’d want to make the simple one because it’s more convincing or is better optics for the AI-risk community. (“We don’t want to look like crazy people.”)

Personally, I am allergic to that whole category of argument. I have a strong presumption that you should argue the thing you actually believe, not some watered-down thing you invented because you think it will manipulate people into believing what you want them to believe. So even if my simpler argument is more convincing, so what?

But say you accept the middle version of the complex argument, yet you think my simple argument is more convincing. And say you’re not as bloody-minded as me, so you want to calibrate your messaging to be more effective. Should you use my simple argument? I’m not sure you should.

The typical human bias is to think other people are similar to us. (How many people favor of mandatory pet insurance funded by a land-value tax? At least 80%, right?) But as far as I can tell, the situation with AI-risk is the opposite. Most people I know are at least mildly concerned, but have the impression that “normal people” think that AI-risk is science fiction nonsense.

Yet, here are some recent polls:

• Gallup, June 2-15 2025

  • “[AI is] very different from the technological advancements that came before, and threatens to harm humans and society”

  • 49% agree

• Reuters / Ipsos, August 13-18 2025

  • “AI could risk the future of humankind”

  • 58% agree

• YouGov, March 5-7 2025

  • “How concerned, if at all, are you about the possibility that artificial intelligence (AI) will cause the end of the human race on Earth?”

  • 37% very or somewhat concerned

• YouGov, June 27-30 2025

  • “How concerned, if at all, are you about the possibility that artificial intelligence (AI) will cause the end of the human race on Earth?”

  • 43% very or somewhat concerned

Being concerned about AI is hardly a fringe position. People are already worried, and becoming more so.

I used to picture my simple argument as a sensible middle-ground, arguing for taking AI-risk seriously, but not overconfident:

But I’m starting to wonder if my “obvious argument” is in fact obvious, and something that people can figure out own their own. From looking at the polling data, it seems like the actual situation is more like this, with people on the left gradually wandering towards the middle:

If anything, the optics may favor a confident argument over my simple argument. In principle, they suggest similar actions: Move quickly to reduce existential risk. But what I actually see is that most people—even people working on AI—feel powerless and are just sort of clenching up and hoping for the best.

I don’t think you should advocate for something you don’t believe. But if you buy the complex argument, and you’re holding yourself back for the sake of optics, I don’t really see the point.