Vitalik Buterin distances himself from the FLI: “Not my AI risk approach”
- The claim has been circulating in the crypto scene for some time that Ethereum inventor Buterin donated an enormous sum to the Future of Life Institute in 2021 to support its lobbying strategy.
- Buterin puts this into perspective today: The 2021 donation was the unexpected result of a crypto boom, and he expressly distances himself from the Future of Life Institute’s current political course.
In 2021, Vitalik Buterin received large amounts of the meme coin SHIB and other “doggy tokens,” which were transferred to him without notice and without his request. The developers apparently wanted to generate attention for their project with a slogan like “Look, Vitalik Buterin holds 50% of our tokens.”
When the tokens actually exploded in value, Buterin wanted to get rid of them as quickly as possible and redirect them to useful projects. A portion went to GiveWell, another to CryptoRelief, and a large remaining portion went to the Future of Life Institute.
First risk prevention – now lobbying
Shortly before the donation, according to Buterin’s account, the FLI had a developed plan to reduce global, existential risks – from biotechnology to the nuclear industry to security precautions against artificial intelligence that was getting out of hand.
Buterin assumed that the FLI could only monetize a fraction of the “doggy coins” that were then viewed as gag tokens – but the result was around half a billion dollars.
Since then, however, the FLI has completely abandoned its original goals and is now only interested in exerting political influence.
The FLI argues that the situation has changed dramatically since 2021 and that an aggressive political course is now necessary in order to be able to stand up to the lobbying power of the large AI companies.
Buterin distances himself
Buterin expresses clear concerns about this approach. Major political campaigns with huge pots of money are susceptible to undesirable developments, authoritarian tendencies and social backlash.
He is particularly critical of the FLI’s focus on technical barriers in biosynthesis devices and AI models. Such blocks are easy to circumvent and could lead to calls to ban open source AI or to privilege individual “trustworthy” companies.
He also points to historical patterns: There are always exceptions for government programs and especially safety authorities when regulating dangerous technologies and so they themselves often become risk factors, for example in laboratory accidents that could release highly dangerous substances.
The alternative: “d/acc” and open technologies
Buterin uses the acryonym “d/acc” for his approach. It stands for “defensive/decentralized/differential acceleration” – i.e. a targeted acceleration of those technologies that strengthen defense capability, decentralization and human autonomy instead of concentrating power and increasing risks.
This makes it possible to build robust technologies that make a world with higher capabilities safer, says Buterin. This included air filtration, early warning systems, secure hardware and verifiable software.
He provided $40 million for his new d/acc project, which will primarily flow into open, freely usable security infrastructure.
He emphasizes that he has communicated to the FLI several times that he no longer agrees with his perspective – and that he would use the resources from back then differently today.
No Comments