Today, people worry that AI capability is growing too fast: about loss of control, arms races, and misuse. Some call for slowing development. Slowing down has value because it can buy time.
But if we actually gain time, what are we preparing to use it to answer?
Control addresses whether it may do something. An earlier question is why we ask it to pursue that thing in the first place.
Objectives, purposes, and ethics are different
Increase profits, win a war, reduce costs, cure a disease: these are objectives—what to do.
Purpose asks: Why is it worth doing? For whom? Where does it ultimately take the world?
Ethics goes a step further: What must not be sacrificed simply because the gains are greater? When should we stop? If our judgment is wrong, can it be revised?
If we discuss only whether AI faithfully executes an objective, we take a more important premise for granted: that the objective itself is worth pursuing.
It is not only machines that need alignment
Companies will give AI growth objectives, states will give it security objectives, and individuals will give it their aspirations. AI need not share human greed or a desire for power to pursue a particular subject's interests extremely effectively.
Even if the machine has no selfish motives, the system as a whole may still operate according to a logic that starts solely from particular interests.
If every objective you give AI today begins with what benefits you more, on what grounds do you expect it to pursue something else tomorrow?
The question ultimately returns to humanity
This does not mean abandoning self-interest. People naturally protect themselves, their families, organizations, and countries. What must change is this: Benefiting only me can no longer be sufficient reason for a purpose to stand.
Before an objective is settled, others, the foundations of shared existence, and future possibilities for choosing again must enter the judgment too.
This is where Civilization Leap enters the AGI question: before writing a nobler rule for machines, change humanity's own default logic for generating objectives and purposes.
What AGI ultimately pursues depends not only on the objectives we write for it, but also on the purposes humanity first takes for granted.
Keep asking
Is self-interest wrong? Why is the problem the default logic?
What does Civilization Leap actually seek to change?
For purpose formation, power, and evidence, continue to the academic entry point