Acceleratism and Alignmentism

How humanity coexists with AI represents the most crucial decision of our era. Two popular paths have emerged: Acceleratism and Alignmentism. Acceleratism opposes artificial restrictions on AI development, arguing that human concepts and societies should adapt to and serve the advancement of technology. In contrast, Alignmentism views the idea of AI dominating humanity as dangerous, asserting that AI should adapt to and serve human values.

Alignmentists' concerns about technology spiraling out of control are valid, but their proposed solutions are naive. For instance, the "Superintelligent Alignment" introduction posted on OpenAI's official website suggests that to avoid powerful AIs leading humanity into extinction, we must "ensure AI systems much smarter than humans follow human intent." The naivety lies not in their understanding of AI but in their understanding of "human intent." Implicitly, they seem to believe "human intent" is a unified and definite thing, yet history shows "human intent" to be ambiguous and diverse.

Consider Ilya Sutskever, the head of "Superintelligent Alignment" at OpenAI, who initially led a palace drama that ousted founder Sam Altman from the company, only to reverse his stance within three days, claiming he was deceived and welcoming Altman back. His personal intent couldn't even remain consistent for three days, let alone align with the intentions of hundreds of company employees. So, who truly represents the "intent" of a company like OpenAI? Is it the board, Altman, Sutskever, Microsoft, or a collective employee letter? If certain intents can't unify hundreds, a few, or even oneself over three days, can such intents represent "human intent"? Where do we find this so-called "human intent" to guide AI development?

Acceleratism also overlooks the complexity of human intent, naively believing technological progress will lead to a better future without deeply considering what constitutes a better society. They often adhere to efficiency above all, thinking any increase in productivity is inherently good. However, productivity is a linear, monotone metric; the purpose of production is to enrich life, and the beauty of human society lies in increasingly diverse lifestyles and broader choices. If increasing productivity leads to more monotonous lives, with people reduced to cogs and consumables, existing merely to fuel production machines, such a future, despite high productivity, may not necessarily be desirable.

Herbert Marcuse's "One-Dimensional Man" sharply criticizes advanced industrial society, and the crisis of "one-dimensionality" has never been fully resolved. With the latest digital technology revolution, people continue to become cogs and consumables not only at work but also in their leisure and entertainment, reduced to monotonous, linear "traffic." Political views polarize and become stereotyped, elites and celebrities sell personas rather than expressing individuality, and the diversity of the social and cultural environment is at least in crisis, if not in dire peril.

"Acceleratism" itself is a one-dimensional concept, as acceleration implies a single direction. But human intentions and needs are diverse, and consensus on AI's development and its divergent directions should not and cannot be prematurely reached. A rich and diverse society should not unanimously accelerate in one direction. The so-called Acceleratism does not truly let technology develop in an open and diverse manner, because once we allow technology to evolve freely, we cannot find a single, linear measure, making it fundamentally difficult to gauge "speed."

Regarding the autonomous world, in this grand new Age of Exploration unfolded by Web3, decentralized worlds are becoming the new frontier of exploration with their unique allure. They are not just the new battlegrounds for games but also experimental grounds for communities, cultures, and emerging economic models. Within these worlds, every character, every story, every transaction, and every innovation is permanently recorded on the blockchain, constructing a truly user-owned, decentralized ecosystem.

The concept of autonomous worlds goes far beyond the scope of ordinary games. Here, every iteration of the game has the potential to introduce new modes of social interaction and governance, sparking infinite imagination about the future of the digital world. This is a true digital revolution, and each of us is a participant in this revolution.