Why We Need a Beacon of Hope in the Looming Gloom of AGI

Purpose of this post:
The conversation around AGI/ASI is dominated by catastrophic risks and vague hopes. This post aims to offer not an answer—but a direction: a concrete, positive societal vision that can serve as a guiding beacon for the future. It is a call for dialogue, not dogma.

Anxiety and the Need for a Guiding Beacon

Progress in advanced AI (AGI/ASI) is accelerating at an unprecedented pace, and with it, existential anxiety grows in communities seriously contemplating humanity’s future—Effective Altruism included. The discourse oscillates between apocalyptic scenarios and vague hopes of a technological utopia. However, in this atmosphere of uncertainty and potential threat, we are critically missing concrete, well-explored positive visions of the future—not guarantees, but “beacons” we can steer toward as we attempt to influence AI development and mitigate risks.

This post is a contribution to finding such a guiding beacon.

A Window of Opportunity

A thorough analysis of the risks associated with superintelligence (ASI) often leads to conclusions about a high probability of catastrophic outcomes. We must not underestimate these risks, and all AI Safety efforts (research on security and alignment) are crucial. Still, we should acknowledge that ASI is too novel and complex for our logical models to cover all the “black swans” of tomorrow.

Logic is our best tool, yet its horizons are limited by initial assumptions and closed rational frameworks. In the fundamentally unpredictable dynamics of “ASI + society,” nothing is fully predetermined. Hence, instead of sinking into paralyzing despair, we should seek ways to improve the odds of a positive outcome.

The Necessity of Action

Simply accepting “whatever outcome” for humanity’s future is a path to self-fulfilling worst-case scenarios. To increase the likelihood of a favorable resolution, we must combine:

• A rigorous technical approach (AI Safety research, alignment protocols, international coordination),
• Uniquely human capabilities (creativity, out-of-the-box thinking, ethical empathy).

These factors can serve as pivotal “irrational” or cultural-ethical counterweights if AI “rationalizes” everything to a degree that leaves humans dispensable.

Capitalism and AI

Long before the AI era, the capitalist system played a massive role in accelerating science and technology. It was indeed competitive markets and private enterprise that fostered global supply chains and the rapid development of the IT sector. In other words, historically, capitalism has demonstrated high efficiency in creating wealth and benefits once deemed unimaginable.

Yet, in the context of superintelligent AI (AGI/ASI), this system takes on an entirely different risk profile:

1. Racing off a cliff. International and corporate competition pushes rapid AI development at any cost, often sidelining safety.
2. Misaligned incentives. Local interests (profit, dominance) do not necessarily coincide with the long-term global interest of survival.
3. Coordination failures. Shortage of trust leads major players to withhold AI Safety breakthroughs, reinforcing a dangerous “first-mover” race.
4. Instability. Deep social inequality, economic volatility, and resource fights complicate any unified plan for safety.

The Risk of Chaos

Moreover, it’s conceivable that ASI itself may be incompatible with present markets and private property institutions. It might either break free, optimizing profit or power to inconceivable levels, or else nullify the labor market and property logic, causing an economic collapse. If that occurs in an uncontrolled manner, humankind could face chaos and conflict—an environment even more perilous for coexistence with powerful AI than today’s.

The Core Problem: The “Cult of Money”

If early-stage capitalism was an engine of progress, in an era of superintelligent AI that same “engine” may well enter a dangerously uncontrollable phase. The current global order revolves around the priority of material gain, which perpetuates a perpetual struggle and fosters potentially destructive processes.

If our goal is to reduce the collision risk between humanity and superintelligent AI, we need an alternative principle. Put differently, instead of maximizing profit or resources, we need a new central focus that:

1. Engages people in work and development voluntarily,
2. Doesn’t provoke a reckless arms race to build unstoppable AI systems,
3. Aligns long-term with global safety and cultural values.

Searching for an Alternative: Emphasizing What’s Human

What can replace money as a “universal goal”? Humanity offers numerous innate drives that could be elevated to major motivators:

• Creativity and mastery,
• Curiosity and exploration,
• Competition and recognition,
• Social interaction and mutual support.

All these qualities are embodied in the concept of “play”—understood broadly as a voluntary, immersive, yet purposeful form of activity. “Play” here is not trivial entertainment but a cultural framework that can structure anything from learning surgery to designing infrastructure.

Introducing the “Game Model”

I propose a “Game-based model” of a post-labor society, where:

• Status replaces money,
• Games serve as the prime engine for skill development and creativity,
• UBI covers basic needs,
• Work (medicine, engineering, research) is “gamified” to preserve and advance critical competencies,
• Refusal (the observer role) is still respected.

To test this idea, I developed the concept of a “Game Culture Civilization” (GCC). Below is a brief outline of how such a model might reduce the threats posed by AGI and foster stability in a future where superintelligent AI exists.

1. Guided AI Integration

In a “game-based” society, people fully acknowledge the dangers of superintelligence and deliberately establish oversight mechanisms:

• Distributed decision-making in AI Safety (democratic or merit-based platforms with thematic competence ratings),
• Subdividing AI systems (assistant, opponent, arbiter) to prevent monopoly of power,
• Regular “safety games” where citizens train to handle potential AI failures.

Here, “game” is not a child’s pastime but a method to maintain widespread skills and readiness, including for tech crises.

2. Mastery and Skills

To prevent skill decay, GCC sets up numerous “Applied Games” in medicine, agrotechnics, energy, etc. Success in these yields high status, incentivizing maintenance of critical abilities. This includes:

• “Pure Games” without AI (e.g., organic farming, mechanical surgery) for preserving analog know-how if technology collapses,
• “Hybrid Games” that teach collaboration between human and AI,
• Creators who continuously design new scenarios and refine the self-governing structure.

3. Recognition instead of Accumulation

With basic needs (UBI) met, fear of poverty dissipates. To avoid widespread apathy, status (reputation) emerges as a driver: people compete (or cooperate) for recognition in complex Games and creative endeavors. This alleviates aggressive resource fights and might facilitate alignment efforts in AI Safety.

4. The Right to Opt Out

The system remains voluntary: observers can live on UBI, not engaging in any Games or creative tasks. This wards off a totalitarian “play or perish” scenario. At the same time, social dynamics (status, cultural respect) make the Games appealing enough to ensure essential fields (medicine, infrastructure) aren’t abandoned.

5. Mitigating AGI Risks

• Reduced “race to the bottom” because there’s no overriding incentive for hyper-capitalist profit,
• Collective vigilance in “safety games” with a strong incentive to detect hazards (for reputation gain),
• Value clarity: society emphasizes creativity and self-realization over raw accumulation; presumably, it might be simpler for an AI to “align” with a culture that has well-defined, non-destructive aims.

Universal Concerns and Vulnerabilities

1. AI Safety still demands technical and political solutions: no social model alone guarantees alignment.
2. Turning “play” into a new cult has pitfalls (KPI-manipulation, potential game-based elite, etc.). Thus, there must be rotation, randomness, and cross-checks.
3. Transition complexity: shifting from capitalist competition to a “game-based” structure is uncertain. Yet if mass automation and UBI become feasible, the condition for such a shift partially emerges.

Call for Dialogue

Everything described here is not a final blueprint, let alone a utopia, but rather a thought experiment on how one might replace the “cult of money” with a different cultural backbone. I’d appreciate feedback on:

1. How realistic is it to swap economic incentives for a “culture of play”?
2. Could such a model genuinely lower the danger of encountering an uncontrollable AI?
3. What serious drawbacks stand out to you in this scheme?
4. Are there other, potentially more viable alternatives that could allow humanity to survive and flourish alongside ASI?

I hope this post prompts discussion, including critical views. I believe we cannot remain in the status quo—too much is at stake. But which path is best remains an open question. I welcome all comments, counterarguments, and scenarios. Together, perhaps we can find that “guiding beacon” to steer us clear of self-fulfilling catastrophe and toward a more optimistic future.