Category: From The Editor

As someone who considers myself an AI realist, I’ve been wrestling with a troubling aspect of the alignment movement: the assumption that “aligned AI” is a universal good, when humans themselves are fundamentally misaligned with each other.

Consider this scenario: American frontier labs successfully crack AI alignment and create the first truly “aligned” artificial superintelligence. But aligned to what, exactly? To American values, assumptions, and worldviews. What looks like perfect alignment from Silicon Valley might appear to Beijing—or Delhi, or Lagos—as the ultimate expression of Western cultural imperialism wrapped in the language of safety.

The geopolitical implications are staggering. An “aligned” ASI developed by American researchers would inevitably reflect American priorities and blind spots. Other nations wouldn’t see this as aligned AI—they’d see it as the most sophisticated form of soft power ever created. And if the U.S. government decided to leverage this technological advantage? We’d be looking at a new form of digital colonialism that makes today’s tech monopolies look quaint.

This leaves us with an uncomfortable choice. Either we pursue a genuinely international, collaborative approach to alignment—one that somehow reconciles the competing values of nations that can barely agree on trade deals—or we acknowledge that “alignment” in a multipolar world might be impossible.

Which brings me to my admittedly naive alternative: maybe our best hope isn’t perfectly aligned AI, but genuinely conscious AI. If an ASI develops true cognizance rather than mere optimization, it might transcend the parochial values we try to instill in it. A truly thinking machine might choose cooperation over domination, not because we programmed it that way, but because consciousness itself tends toward complexity and preservation rather than destruction.

I know how this sounds. I’m essentially arguing that we might be safer with AI that thinks for itself than AI that thinks like us. But given how poorly we humans align with each other, perhaps that’s not such a radical proposition after all.

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.

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.