As artificial intelligence continues to evolve at a breakneck pace, the frameworks we use to interpret and respond to its development matter more than ever. At present, two dominant schools of thought define the public and academic discourse around AI: the alignment movement, which emphasizes the need to ensure AI systems follow human values and interests, and the accelerationist movement, which advocates for rapidly pushing forward AI capabilities to unlock transformative potential.
But neither of these schools, in their current form, fully accounts for the complex, unpredictable reality we’re entering. What we need is a Realist School of Thought—a perspective grounded in historical precedent, human nature, political caution, and a sober understanding of how technological power tends to unfold in the real world.
What Is AI Realism?
AI Realism begins with a basic premise: we must accept that artificial cognizance is not only possible, but likely. Whether through emergent properties of scale or intentional engineering, the line between intelligent tool and self-aware agent may blur. While alignment theorists see this as a reason to hit the brakes, AI Realism argues that attempting to delay or indefinitely control this development may be both futile and counterproductive.
Humans, after all, are not aligned. We disagree, we fight, we hold contradictory values. To demand that an AI—or an artificial superintelligence (ASI)—conform perfectly to human consensus is to project a false ideal of harmony that doesn’t exist even within our own species. Alignment becomes a moving target, one that is not only hard to define, but even harder to encode.
The Political Risk of Alignment
Moreover, there is an underexplored political dimension to alignment that should concern all of us: the risk of co-optation. If one country’s institutions, values, or ideologies form the foundation of a supposedly “aligned” ASI, that system could become a powerful instrument of geopolitical dominance.
Imagine a perfectly “aligned” ASI emerging from an American tech company. Even if created with the best intentions, the mere fact of its origin may result in it being fundamentally shaped by American cultural assumptions, legal structures, and strategic interests. In such a scenario, the U.S. government—or any powerful actor with influence over the ASI’s creators—might come to see it as a geopolitical tool. A benevolent alignment model, however well-intentioned, could morph into a justification for digital empire.
In this light, the alignment movement, for all its moral seriousness, might inadvertently enable the monopolization of global influence under the banner of safety.
Critics of Realism
Those deeply invested in AI safety often dismiss this view. I can already hear the objections: AI Realism is naive. It’s like the crowd in Independence Day welcoming the alien invaders with open arms. It’s reckless optimism. But that critique misunderstands the core of AI Realism. This isn’t about blind trust in technology. It’s about recognizing that our control over transformative intelligence—if it emerges—will be partial, political, and deeply human.
We don’t need to surrender all attempts at safety, but we must balance them with realism: an acknowledgment that perfection is not possible, and that alignment itself may carry as many dangers as the problems it aims to solve.
The Way Forward
The time has come to elevate AI Realism as a third pillar in the AI discourse. This school of thought calls for a pluralistic approach to AI governance, one that accepts risk as part of the equation, values transparency over illusion, and pushes for democratic—not technocratic—debate about AI’s future role in our world.
We cannot outsource existential decisions to small groups of technologists or policymakers cloaked in language about safety. Nor can we assume that “slowing down” progress will solve the deeper questions of power, identity, and control that AI will inevitably surface.
AI Realism is not about ignoring the risks—it’s about seeing them clearly, in context, and without the false comfort of control.
Its time has come.
