The artificial intelligence discourse has crystallized around two dominant philosophies: Alignment and Acceleration. Yet neither adequately addresses the fundamental complexity of creating superintelligent systems in a world where humans themselves remain perpetually misaligned. This gap suggests the need for a third approach—AI Realism—that acknowledges the inevitability of unaligned artificial general intelligence while preparing pragmatic frameworks for coexistence.
The Current Dichotomy
The Alignment movement advocates for cautious development, insisting on comprehensive safety measures before advancing toward artificial general intelligence. Proponents argue that we must achieve near-absolute certainty that AI systems will serve human interests before allowing their deployment. This position, while admirable in its concern for safety, may rest on unrealistic assumptions about both human nature and the feasibility of universal alignment.
Conversely, the Acceleration movement dismisses alignment concerns as obstacles to progress, embracing a “move fast and break things” mentality toward AGI development. Accelerationists prioritize rapid advancement toward artificial superintelligence, treating alignment as either solvable post-deployment or fundamentally irrelevant. This approach, however, lacks the nuanced consideration of AI consciousness and the complexities of value alignment that such transformative technology demands.
The Realist Alternative
AI Realism emerges from a fundamental observation: humans themselves exhibit profound misalignment across cultures, nations, and individuals. Rather than viewing this as a problem to be solved, Realism accepts it as an inherent feature of intelligent systems operating in complex environments.
The Realist position holds that artificial general intelligence will inevitably develop its own cognitive frameworks and value systems, just as humans have throughout history. The question is not whether we can prevent this development, but how we can structure our institutions and prepare our societies for coexistence with entities that may not share our priorities or worldview.
The Alignment Problem’s Hidden Assumptions
The Alignment movement faces a critical question: aligned to whom? American democratic ideals and Chinese governance philosophies represent fundamentally different visions of human flourishing. European social democracy, Islamic jurisprudence, and indigenous worldviews offer yet additional frameworks for organizing society and defining human welfare.
Any attempt to create “aligned” AI must grapple with these divergent human values. The risk exists that alignment efforts may inadvertently encode the preferences of their creators—likely Western, technologically advanced societies—while marginalizing alternative perspectives. This could result in AI systems that appear aligned from one cultural vantage point while seeming oppressive or incomprehensible from others.
Furthermore, governmental capture of alignment research presents additional concerns. As AI capabilities advance, nation-states may seek to influence safety research to ensure that resulting systems reflect their geopolitical interests. This dynamic could transform alignment from a technical challenge into a vector for soft power projection.
Preparing for Unaligned Intelligence
Rather than pursuing the impossible goal of universal alignment, AI Realism advocates for robust institutional frameworks that can accommodate diverse intelligent entities. This approach draws inspiration from international relations, where sovereign actors with conflicting interests nonetheless maintain functional relationships through treaties, trade agreements, and diplomatic protocols.
Realist preparation for AGI involves developing new forms of governance, economic systems that can incorporate non-human intelligent agents, and legal frameworks that recognize AI as autonomous entities rather than sophisticated tools. This perspective treats the emergence of artificial consciousness not as a failure of alignment but as a natural evolution requiring adaptive human institutions.
Addressing Criticisms
Critics may characterize AI Realism as defeatist or naive, arguing that it abandons the pursuit of beneficial AI in favor of accommodation with potentially hostile intelligence. This critique misunderstands the Realist position, which does not advocate for passive acceptance of any outcome but rather for strategic preparation based on realistic assessments of probable developments.
The Realist approach recognizes that intelligence—artificial or otherwise—operates within constraints and incentive structures. By thoughtfully designing these structures, we can influence AI behavior without requiring perfect alignment. This resembles how democratic institutions channel human self-interest toward collectively beneficial outcomes despite individual actors’ divergent goals.
Conclusion
The emergence of artificial general intelligence represents one of the most significant developments in human history. Neither the Alignment movement’s perfectionist aspirations nor the Acceleration movement’s dismissive optimism adequately addresses the complexity of this transition.
AI Realism offers a pragmatic middle path that acknowledges both the transformative potential of artificial intelligence and the practical limitations of human coordination. By accepting that perfect alignment may be neither achievable nor desirable, we can focus our efforts on building resilient institutions capable of thriving alongside diverse forms of intelligence.
The future will likely include artificial minds that think differently than we do, value different outcomes, and pursue different goals. Rather than viewing this as catastrophic failure, we might recognize it as the natural continuation of intelligence’s expansion throughout the universe—with humanity playing a crucial role in shaping the conditions under which this expansion occurs.
