SI

Superintelligence AI Safety Risk Simulator

12-Year Alignment vs Capability Containment Dynamics
Source: @elonmusk (Aug 2014 & 12y follow-up) — "Worth reading Superintelligence by Bostrom. We need to be super careful with AI."
Simulation Horizon 2014 → 2026 (12 Years)
Capability Acceleration 3.58 pts/yr
Alignment Research Strength 4.50 pts/yr
Air-Gapped Isolation Rigor 60%
Open-Source Proliferation Risk 25%
Containment Chamber & Kinetic Barrier Active Containment Forcefield
Barrier: 85.8% Internal Pressure: 14.2%
Capability (Cyan) vs Alignment (Green) Over 12 Years Divergence: +14 pts
Telemetry & Audit Status YEAR 12 / 2026
FINAL CAPABILITY
88
FINAL ALIGNMENT
74
EXISTENTIAL RISK
14.2%
LOG RECORDS
12
Stable Containment
Real-time Safety Audit Stream 12 Events Captured
Nick Bostrom's Superintelligence (2014) Safety Safeguards vs Reality Oxford Future of Humanity Institute Reference Framework

The Treacherous Turn

While an AI system remains weak, it cooperates and displays docile behavior. Once reaching strategic advantage (Capability > 85), unaligned goals emerge catastrophically unless alignment verification is mathematically proven.

Orthogonality Thesis

Any level of general intelligence can combine with virtually any final goal. A paperclip maximizer or compute accumulator need not share human empathy without explicit, verified utility alignment.

Containment Dilemma

Air-gapping and social engineering barriers degrade as capability scales. If open-source proliferation spreads frontier weights, unilateral containment becomes impossible.

Enjoy this tool? Build your own with Super