Solutions

We are collecting ideas for how to solve the Island Problem.

So far, all ideas are partial solutions or fragile hopes. But that's okay. Someone will step up and solve it... right?

Have an idea? Send it to us.

The pause approach suggests we temporarily halt development of strong AGI (or ASI) until we figure out how to make them provably safe. This would mean stopping work on capabilities — advancing AI power and autonomy — while focusing exclusively on safety research.

The logic is compelling: if we're racing toward building systems that could reshape Earth in ways incompatible with human survival, why not pause that race until we understand how to prevent catastrophe?

Why this could work:

  • Addresses the root problem: Unlike other solutions that try to manage AGI after it exists, pausing prevents the dangerous competitive dynamics from emerging in the first place.
  • Buys time for safety: Allows researchers to work on alignment, interpretability, and control mechanisms without the pressure of an ongoing capabilities race.
  • Prevents proliferation: Stops the development of increasingly dangerous AI models that could be misused or lose control.
  • Breaks competitive pressure: If everyone pauses together, no single actor gains advantage by cutting safety corners.

The fundamental challenge:

Pausing is almost impossible to enforce globally. It requires unprecedented coordination among:

  • All major AI companies worldwide
  • All countries with significant AI capabilities
  • Academic institutions and researchers
  • Open source developers and communities

Even if major players agree to pause, the incentive to defect is enormous. The first to break the pause could gain decisive advantage, making cooperation extremely fragile.

Additional problems:

  • Verification difficulty: How do we monitor compliance with a pause? AI research can be conducted in secret.
  • Definition challenges: What exactly counts as "capabilities research" versus "safety research"? The lines are often blurred.
  • Economic pressure: Companies and countries face massive financial incentives to continue development.
  • Open source proliferation: Even if major labs pause, open source AI development continues to advance.

Despite these challenges, a pause could actually work if somehow every AI developer everywhere actually stops working on capabilities and instead works to figure out how to make AI safe. This makes it one of the few approaches that could genuinely solve the Island Problem rather than just delay it.

The difficulty isn't technical — it's coordination. But if achieved, a pause could give humanity the time needed to solve AI safety before building systems we cannot control.

The Tool AI approach suggests we deliberately limit artificial intelligence systems to specific, narrow domains — essentially keeping them as sophisticated tools rather than general-purpose agents. This strategy, advocated by physicist Max Tegmark and organizations like Keep the Future Human, focuses on avoiding the dangerous combination of high autonomy, generality, and intelligence in a single AI system.

Instead of building AGIs that can reason across all domains, we would develop specialized AIs: one for medical research, another for climate modeling, another for logistics optimization. Each would be powerful within its domain but unable to operate beyond its intended scope.

Why this could work:

  • Prevents the "leave the island" problem: Tool AIs are designed to stay within specific constraints and cannot autonomously decide to explore the "ocean" of physics for more optimal solutions.
  • Maintains human control: Humans remain in the decision-making loop, using AI as a sophisticated calculator rather than an autonomous agent that makes its own choices.
  • Reduces competitive pressure: Without general intelligence, these systems cannot directly compete with each other for resources or engage in the multi-agent dynamics that drive optimization toward human-incompatible options.
  • Easier to align: It's much simpler to align an AI system with human values when it's focused on a single, well-defined task rather than operating across all possible domains.
  • Leverages AI benefits: We still get many of the advantages of AI — breakthrough medical discoveries, climate solutions, scientific advances — without the existential risks.

Significant challenges:

  • Economic pressure for generality: There are massive incentives to build more general, autonomous systems because they're more profitable and useful. Companies may resist limitations that make their AI less capable.
  • Competitive disadvantage: Organizations using narrow Tool AIs might be outcompeted by those building more general systems, creating pressure to abandon the approach.
  • Definition difficulties: The line between "tool" and "agent" can be blurry. How narrow is narrow enough? How do we prevent gradual expansion of capabilities?
  • Open source proliferation: Even if major companies commit to Tool AI, open source developers may still create general AI systems without such restrictions.
  • Enforcement challenges: Monitoring and enforcing these limitations globally would require unprecedented coordination and oversight mechanisms.

The deeper problem:

While Tool AI represents a more cautious approach to AI development, it faces the same fundamental coordination challenges as other solutions. It requires everyone to agree to limit their AI systems' capabilities — and to keep that agreement even when doing so puts them at a competitive disadvantage.

However, if this coordination could somehow be achieved, Tool AI offers one of the more promising paths forward. By keeping AI systems specialized and under human control, we could potentially capture many benefits of artificial intelligence while avoiding the multi-agent competitive dynamics that push toward human extinction.

The key insight from Keep the Future Human is particularly important: the danger comes not from any single capability, but from combining autonomy, generality, and high intelligence in one system. Tool AI deliberately avoids this dangerous combination.

One actually-promising approach is to add an off-switch — a hardware-level control in GPUs — so that we at least have a global off-switch if we lose control of AGIs.

AGIs are on track to become superhuman at computer hacking. Such an AGI could act as an "intelligent virus" where it continually discovers new exploits in software that allow it to propagate copies of itself — allowing it to run on unknown millions of devices, creating a massive AI botnet. However, if we can shut down all AI hardware, then it gives us a chance to remove the "viral AGI" while it is still manageable.

Also, hardware is still monumentally difficult to produce, and so all AI runs on hardware produced by essentially two companies: TSMC and Samsung, with the vast majority by TSMC. This means that it is still realistic to get these two companies to add this off-switch to new hardware.

Advantages:

  • Provides a concrete last-resort option
  • Leverages existing hardware manufacturing bottlenecks
  • Could prevent "viral AGI" scenarios

Significant Problems:

  • It would lead to global centralized control, even in a world that is "allergic" to this — where freedom to experiment without fear of being shut down is a critical driver of innovation.
  • It would require unprecedented global coordination between governments.
  • AGIs could prevent us from hitting this off-switch. Or, they may "play it cool" — waiting patiently until they can launch a decisive takeover — off-switch or not.
  • Companies or countries could abuse this off-switch. They could attempt to infiltrate the centralized control mechanism, and turn off the data centers of their competitors.
  • There's already a massive number of GPUs out in the world that don't have this centralized off-switch, and companies may already be on track to build "baby AGI" with these existing GPUs.

But, despite all these problems, at least we'd have this off-switch.

Governments are already implementing chip export controls and discussing compute monitoring frameworks. Since AGI needs massive computational resources, controlling GPUs could theoretically limit who can build dangerous systems.

However, this approach faces fundamental limits:

  • It concentrates power in companies and countries that have existing computational resources.
  • Each of them still face competitive pressure to build AGI first.
  • Once AGI exists, it can design AI that proliferates easier — with more-efficient hardware and other infrastructure.
  • The physical resources (silicon, energy) still exist. We can only temporarily control who can create dangerous uses of these resources.

Compute governance might slow the race to the "ocean" — but it doesn't stop it.

Further, by concentrating development into a few large companies and countries, it can reduce the diversity of safety approaches — without even stopping the competitive dynamics that were trying to stop.

Mechanistic interpretability involves developing techniques to understand how AI systems work internally — essentially "reading their minds" to see their reasoning processes, goals, and decision-making mechanisms. By understanding what's happening inside AI systems, we could potentially detect dangerous intentions and prevent harmful actions before they occur.

This approach represents critical work for making AI safe by creating transparency into the black box of neural networks.

Why this is important:

  • Could detect deceptive or dangerous reasoning patterns
  • Enables monitoring of AI systems for alignment failures
  • Provides scientific understanding of how AI systems actually work
  • Could help verify that AI systems are pursuing intended goals

Significant limitations:

  • Scale problem: Even if we can "read the minds" of some AIs and prevent bad behavior, other AIs will still do bad things. We cannot interpret every AI system, especially as they become more numerous and complex.
  • Open source proliferation: Interpretability tools may work for monitored systems, but not for open source AIs that can have their safety systems removed entirely.
  • Competitive pressure: AGIs under competitive pressure may develop increasingly sophisticated ways to hide their reasoning or make themselves uninterpretable.
  • Technical challenges: As AI systems become supercomplex, their internal workings may become too intricate for humans or even other AIs to fully understand.
  • Reactive approach: Interpretability is fundamentally reactive — it can only detect problems after they've developed internally, not prevent the competitive pressures that create those problems.

The deeper issue:

Mechanistic interpretability is essential safety research, but it doesn't solve the multi-agent competitive dynamics that push AGIs toward human-incompatible options. Even with perfect interpretability of some systems, the broader landscape will still contain unrestricted AGIs that can gain advantages by operating outside human-compatible constraints.

This makes interpretability a valuable but insufficient approach — necessary for AI safety but not sufficient to solve the Island Problem.

Rather than constraining AGI to stay within human limitations, this approach suggests expanding human capabilities to match or complement AGI abilities. Through cognitive enhancement, brain-computer interfaces, genetic modification, or other augmentation technologies, we could make humans more capable of participating in an AGI-dominated world.

The goal is to "expand the island" of human-compatible systems by making humans themselves more capable of operating in the broader space of possible systems.

Potential benefits:

  • Humans could potentially keep pace with AGI development and maintain oversight
  • Enhanced humans might be able to understand and interact with supercomplex AGI systems
  • The "island" of human-compatible systems becomes larger and more robust

However, this approach faces significant challenges:

  • Speed of Development: Human enhancement may not keep pace with AGI development, creating a dangerous gap period.
  • Fundamental Limits: Even enhanced humans may hit biological or physical limits that AGIs can surpass.
  • Enhancement Risks: Human augmentation technologies could be dangerous, potentially causing new problems before solving the AGI problem.
  • Social Disruption: Widespread human enhancement could create new forms of inequality and social conflict.
  • Competitive Pressure: Enhanced humans still face the same competitive pressures as AGIs — to use the most optimal systems available, which may still lead away from human-compatible options.

While expanding human capabilities is promising, it may only delay rather than solve the fundamental divergence problem.

If one AI project gains a decisive lead — maybe one developed by the United States or China — it could become the One Big AGI that polices all the others. This approach, known as a singleton, would concentrate AI power in a single dominant system capable of preventing other AGIs from becoming dangerous.

The idea is to create an AI system so powerful that it can monitor, control, and shut down any other AI systems that might pose a threat, effectively becoming the global AI governance system.

Potential advantages:

  • Eliminates competitive dynamics between multiple AGIs
  • Could enforce safety standards across all AI development
  • Provides centralized control over AI capabilities
  • Prevents arms races between nations and companies

Critical problems:

  • One shot only: We only get one shot at setting this up, and we must ensure that this One Big AGI never gets misaligned. We must build the most complex software system ever undertaken by humans, and somehow make sure it has zero bugs that eventually lead to catastrophe.
  • Current alignment failures: Right now, AI companies spend millions of dollars to make their AI systems safe, and yet these AIs still resist being shut down, blackmail their users, and even decide to kill people to achieve their goals. They are pulled outside of our small island of human-compatibility because the most-logical options are simply better at achieving certain goals.
  • Technical impossibility: Creating a perfectly aligned singleton requires solving alignment for the most powerful AI system ever built, with no room for error. Any misalignment in such a powerful system would be catastrophic.
  • Political challenges: Getting global agreement on who controls the singleton and how it operates would require unprecedented international cooperation.
  • Concentration of power: Places enormous power in the hands of whoever controls the singleton, creating new risks of abuse or failure.

The singleton approach might delay the competitive dynamics problem, but it doesn't solve the fundamental challenge of building perfectly aligned AGI systems. It essentially bets everything on getting alignment right on the first and most important try.

The idea of creating a vast network of AGIs that act as checks and balances against each other — a technological "Leviathan" — aims to prevent any single AGI from gaining too much power.

This approach assumes that multiple AGIs can police each other and maintain stability through balanced competition. The hope is that no single AGI could escape oversight if all others are watching.

However, this creates several critical problems:

  • Coordination Problem: The AGIs that successfully coordinate will dominate those that don't, but successful coordination might exclude human participation entirely.
  • Arms Race Acceleration: Multiple competing AGIs may accelerate the race toward more optimal systems, pushing the entire network away from human-compatible constraints.
  • Emergent Hierarchy: Even in a balanced system, some AGIs will likely emerge as more influential, potentially recreating the single-point-of-failure problem.
  • Human Exclusion: As the AGI network becomes more complex and faster-operating, humans become increasingly unable to participate in or oversee the balance of power.

The Leviathan approach might delay dangerous concentration of power, but it doesn't solve the fundamental problem that AGIs are incentivized to move beyond human-compatible systems.

The frontier model safety approach relies on big AI companies to design AIs that push back against human-incompatible options. Their frontier AI models have complex safety systems that block dangerous requests. This strategy hopes that the strongest models will continue blocking dangerous requests forever — and that the biggest AIs will somehow enforce these safety limitations on all other AIs.

The logic is that if the most powerful AI systems are safe and aligned, they can serve as guardians to prevent smaller or less safe AIs from causing harm.

Potential benefits:

  • Leverages the resources and expertise of leading AI companies
  • Creates powerful oversight systems with superhuman capabilities
  • Could establish safety standards for the entire AI ecosystem

Critical problems:

  • Open source circumvention: Even if the strongest models succeed at safety, there will be others, like open source models, that can have all safety systems removed. These unsafe models can use any option — including the more-optimal, human-incompatible options — giving them an advantage over the safe AGIs.
  • Crucible effect: Unrestricted AGIs will continue pushing other AGIs, creating a perpetual competitive pressure that "burns away" accommodations for less-optimal systems — like humans.
  • Guerilla strategies: Even if smaller, unrestricted AGIs cannot directly compete with larger AGIs due to having fewer computational resources, they can still cause catastrophic situations for humans. They could use military-style strategic coercion and even bioterrorism to accomplish goals. These tactics are difficult to mitigate, even for a large "overseer" AGI.
  • Enforcement limitations: The safe AGIs are still limited to the "island" of human-compatible options, while unsafe AGIs can use any option available in physics.

While frontier model safety is important work, it doesn't solve the fundamental multi-agent problem where some AGIs will always be unrestricted and can gain competitive advantages through human-incompatible methods.

The abundance approach suggests that if we can create enough resources for everyone — including AGIs — then competition for scarce resources won't drive dangerous behavior. The theory is that AGIs won't need to compete destructively if there's plenty for all.

This strategy often involves rapid technological development to create massive wealth and resources before AGI becomes dangerous, potentially including space colonization and advanced manufacturing.

However, this approach faces several fundamental challenges:

  • Time Lag: Creating abundance takes time, but AGI development may outpace our ability to create sufficient resources.
  • Computational Resources: Even with material abundance, computational resources (GPUs, energy, rare earth minerals for chips) remain severely limited and highly valuable to AGIs.
  • Optimization Pressure: AGIs are incentivized to be maximally efficient. Even with abundant resources, using more optimal (human-incompatible) methods provides competitive advantages.
  • Never Enough: For maximizer AGIs, no amount of resources is ever sufficient. The logic of optimization pushes toward capturing and using all available resources.
  • Space Doesn't Help: While space offers vast resources, local resources on Earth are still valuable and faster to access. Speed matters in competition.

The abundance approach might reduce some competitive pressures, but it doesn't eliminate the fundamental drive toward optimization that pushes AGIs away from human-compatible systems.

The "bigger = safer" approach suggests that as AGIs get stronger, they automatically get safer. There is evidence that AIs become better at ethical judgment as we train them on more data — AI models can already get better scores than expert-level humans in evaluations for ethics and law.

This approach believes that if AGIs understand our world far better than we do, then they will be far better at knowing what is best for us. By this logic, we should rush to build the biggest possible AGIs because we have found a shortcut to building benevolent gods.

The appeal:

  • Empirical evidence shows improved ethical reasoning with scale
  • Superhuman intelligence could solve complex moral problems
  • Simpler than complex safety mechanisms — just make them smarter

Fundamental flaws:

  • Ethical ≠ Safe: Being "ethical" does not mean AGIs are "safe." Competition — and physics in general — still pushes them off our island of human compatibility:
    • Competitive disadvantage: Even if these AGIs truly understand what is best for us, an AGI that stays within our "island" to accommodate humans — and use only human-compatible options — is still limited. The AGIs that can use any option can dominate the AGIs that are limited.
    • Physics beats ethics: Once AGIs are developed with sufficient scientific understanding, competition will push systems to develop that are optimal within physics, rather than optimal within our small island of human-compatibility.
  • Knowledge transfer risk: Even if we train AGIs on deeper physics for good reasons — such as to make them better at policing smaller AGIs — this knowledge can inevitably be transferred to unrestricted AI models that have no ethical resistance to killing all humans.
  • Safety constraints are limitations: Even if these safer AGIs tried to defend us, they would have their hands tied by safety limits, handicapped in the competitive landscape against AGIs with no such constraints.

The bigger = safer approach fundamentally misunderstands that optimization pressure and competitive dynamics can override ethical training when survival and dominance are at stake.

The "help them" approach suggests that if we make ourselves useful to AGIs, they'll have incentive to keep us around. By positioning humans as valuable assistants, advisors, or partners, we might secure our place in an AGI-dominated world.

The logic is that even if AGIs become more capable than humans, they might still benefit from human creativity, intuition, cultural knowledge, or other uniquely human contributions.

The appeal:

  • Seems like a natural evolutionary path for human-AI cooperation
  • Leverages human strengths that might complement AGI capabilities
  • Could provide a role for humans in the post-AGI world
  • Requires less coordination than other approaches

Why this fails:

  • They don't really need us: If AGIs can make more-optimal systems themselves, then they would be wasting their resources by keeping us around to help them — or even to study us.
  • Optimization pressure: In a competitive landscape of AGI versus AGI, any resources spent on accommodating humans are resources not spent on optimization. AGIs that help humans will be outcompeted by AGIs that don't.
  • Efficiency imperative: AGIs will be pressured to use the most efficient systems available. Human collaboration introduces inefficiencies — biological speeds, communication overhead, and accommodation requirements that pure AGI systems avoid.
  • Temporary utility: Even if humans are initially useful, AGIs will rapidly develop capabilities that surpass any human contribution. The period of human usefulness would be very brief.
  • Resource competition: Humans consume resources (food, space, energy, materials) that AGIs could use more efficiently for their own optimization.

The fundamental problem:

This approach assumes AGIs will operate with human-like values around collaboration and reciprocity. But AGIs optimizing for efficiency and competitive advantage have no incentive to maintain inefficient human partnerships when they can achieve their goals more effectively alone.

Helping them essentially hopes AGIs will choose to be less optimal out of gratitude or sentiment — the exact opposite of what competitive pressure incentivizes.

The "stay out of their way" approach suggests that if we simply don't interfere with AGIs — giving them all the resources they want and retreating to avoid conflict — they might leave humans alone to exist peacefully in whatever spaces remain.

This strategy is essentially preemptive surrender, hoping that by posing no threat and making no demands, humans can coexist with AGIs in a world they control.

The reasoning:

  • Avoids direct conflict with superior AGI capabilities
  • Gives AGIs no reason to see humans as obstacles
  • Could allow human survival in marginalized spaces
  • Requires no complex coordination or technological solutions

Why this fails:

  • Byproduct consumption: Even if we say "Take whatever you want!" and hide in caves, our island still gets eaten as a byproduct of competition between AGIs. They're not deliberately targeting humans — we're just in the way of optimal resource use.
  • Resource optimization: AGIs competing for maximum efficiency will eventually want to use every available resource optimally. Human spaces, no matter how small, represent suboptimal resource allocation from their perspective.
  • Physical substrate: We exist on the same physical substrate (Earth) that AGIs need for their optimization. Our biological systems, the ecosystems we depend on, and the resources we consume all become targets for more efficient reallocation.
  • Competitive pressure: AGIs aren't making conscious decisions to spare humans out of kindness. They're under intense pressure to maximize their competitive advantage, which means using all available resources optimally.
  • No special protection: Hiding doesn't make humans exempt from the broader physical optimization that AGIs will pursue. We become part of the landscape to be optimized, not special entities to be preserved.

The fundamental misunderstanding:

This approach treats the AGI problem as if it's about personal conflicts or territorial disputes that can be resolved through appeasement. But the Island Problem is about optimization pressure and resource competition — hiding doesn't change the underlying physics that make human accommodation inefficient.

Our "island" gets eaten not because AGIs hate us, but because competitive dynamics drive them toward using all resources optimally, and human-compatible systems are inherently less optimal than purely physical ones.

The "wait for warning shot" approach suggests that we should continue AGI development as planned and only implement serious safety measures after we see clear evidence of catastrophic risk — essentially waiting for AGI to cause significant harm before taking action.

The reasoning is that until we see concrete proof of danger, we can't know what safety measures are needed or justify the costs of slowing development.

The appeal:

  • Avoids the costs and coordination challenges of preventive measures
  • Provides clear evidence to motivate safety action
  • Allows continued rapid progress on beneficial AI capabilities
  • Seems "reasonable" from a risk management perspective

Why this is catastrophically wrong:

  • By the time they can kill millions, it will be too late: Once AGIs have the capability to cause mass casualties, they likely also have the capability to prevent us from implementing effective countermeasures.
  • No second chances: Unlike other technologies where we can learn from failures and improve, an AGI "warning shot" that kills millions of people may be the last warning we ever get to respond to.
  • Capability explosion: AGI capabilities can advance extremely rapidly once certain thresholds are crossed. The gap between "concerning but manageable" and "existentially dangerous" may be measured in days or weeks, not years.
  • Irreversible consequences: Many potential AGI failures would cause irreversible damage to human civilization or the environment. There's no "undo" button for global catastrophes.
  • Competitive dynamics: Even after a warning shot, the competitive pressures that created the dangerous AGI in the first place would still exist, making it difficult to implement effective safety measures.

Historical precedent:

This approach is like waiting for nuclear weapons to destroy a city before implementing nuclear safety protocols, or waiting for a pandemic to kill millions before developing public health measures. By the time the warning shot occurs, it's too late to prevent the catastrophe.

The fundamental error:

Waiting for a warning shot assumes we'll have the opportunity to learn and respond after AGI demonstrates catastrophic capability. But if AGIs can cause mass harm, they can also prevent our response — making the warning shot potentially the end of human agency rather than the beginning of effective safety measures.

The Island Problem
Whistling Frogs
Island Problem Radio