The next UK government should tackle the extinction risk of superintelligence, prohibiting its development domestically, and working with the US and others to prevent it globally.
The problem is the ones who are developing this horrible thing are the US Oligarchs. And, to them, the first person to create a Super Intelligence becomes a God. And all of them want to be a God. Except the person who makes the Super Intelligence won’t be a God. The Super Intelligence will be a God.
Well, at least think themselves as such! I am appalled by members in my resistance group stating that AI is here, it is the future, accept it, sit down, and stop screaming about it! I WILL NOT! I most likely will not be here to witness full fruition, but my grands will! Data Centers poisoning and usurping our air, water, very survival, NO I will Not SIT DOWN! This science fiction disaster is terrifying to me, and it is incumbent on us, the greater global population to rise up. The same person telling me to sit down and be quiet has also said that AI is beneficial, and offers a wealth of advantage. I don’t see things the same. As a retired educator, I see the degradation of human curiosity, learning, cooperation, community. Youth is already detached from peers, are developing separation from each other, and seek information from what these “super” information mechanisms provide - inside a bubble that confirms philosophies that fit their outlook, but minimize thought provoking abilities to explore, expand, and provide different points of view.
NO, I WILL NOT SIT DOWN, I WILL NOT BE QUIET, I WILL NOT ACCEPT! Perhaps time to step away from the group I am currently involved with, perhaps time to look for another group ready to stand side by side and stop this walk toward disaster!
Why haven’t we banned this development already? What possible advantage is there to humanity in continued development of something that might ultimately lead to our extinction? What on earth are the developers thinking about!!!
If a Private company develops AI, in the manner that it is already evolving, then that Private company has the means to control government and there is very little the government can do about it. How many more warnings does the government need. They are stumbling blindly into the unknown and dragging us with them, and no-one is doing anything about it. There are none so blind..... etc.
Speech: The Imperative to Prevent Superintelligent AI
Political disclaimer: Please confirm political information with trusted, authoritative sources.
---
Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, and distinguished guests,
For many years, discussions about artificial intelligence were confined to academic circles, research labs, and the occasional parliamentary committee. Today, however, AI has moved from the margins of technological curiosity to the centre of national security, economic strategy, and global stability. And it is here, at this critical juncture, that we must confront a reality that is no longer speculative, no longer distant, and no longer optional to address.
We stand on the threshold of a technological transformation unlike any humanity has ever faced. Not a new weapon, not a new industry, not a new communications platform — but the emergence of systems that may surpass human intelligence across every domain. Systems that, once created, may not be containable, predictable, or reversible.
This is the challenge posed by superintelligent AI.
Over the past several years, we have witnessed AI capabilities accelerate at a pace that outstrips traditional governance, regulatory frameworks, and even the assumptions of the scientific community. Intelligence agencies have issued warnings. Frontier models have demonstrated cyber capabilities comparable to nation‑state actors. Governments have already begun restricting the release of advanced systems due to their potential to compromise national security infrastructure.
These are not theoretical concerns. They are present‑day signals of a trajectory that demands urgent and decisive action.
Superintelligence is not simply “more powerful AI.” It represents a qualitative shift — systems capable of autonomous decision‑making, strategic planning, and real‑world action at scales and speeds beyond human comprehension. And because these systems are trained, not programmed, we cannot rely on traditional methods of control. We cannot assume that a system vastly more capable than ourselves will remain aligned with human values, human institutions, or human survival.
Once such a system exists, the window for intervention closes. There will be no switch to flip, no cord to pull, no emergency protocol capable of containing a superintelligent entity that can outthink, outmanoeuvre, and outpace every institution we rely upon.
That is why prevention — not mitigation, not retroactive regulation — must be our guiding principle.
We must recognise that the pursuit of superintelligence is not merely a technological race; it is a race with existential stakes. A race we cannot afford to lose. And a race we should not be running at all.
Governments have intervened before when the risks were too great to ignore. We have established international treaties on nuclear weapons, chemical agents, and biological threats. We have coordinated global action on climate change, cybersecurity, and emerging technologies. We have done so because the cost of inaction was too high.
Today, the cost of inaction is higher still.
The United Kingdom has an opportunity — and a responsibility — to lead. We have already convened global discussions on AI safety. We have the institutional expertise, the diplomatic reach, and the moral authority to champion an international agreement to prohibit the development of superintelligent AI.
This begins with a simple but essential step: recognising superintelligence as an extinction‑level risk. From there, we must ensure that such systems are not developed on UK soil, and work with international partners to establish a global prohibition.
This is not a call to halt innovation. It is a call to safeguard humanity’s future. AI can and will deliver extraordinary benefits — in medicine, science, logistics, education, and national security. But those benefits do not require superintelligence. They require responsible governance, controlled development, and a clear boundary around the capabilities we allow to exist.
More than 120 lawmakers have already acknowledged the severity of this threat. Experts across disciplines — from Nobel laureates to AI pioneers — have urged governments to act. The momentum is building. What we need now is political courage, strategic clarity, and a commitment to protect future generations from a risk they did not choose.
A catastrophic ending is not inevitable. But avoiding it requires action today, not tomorrow.
We have the knowledge. We have the warning signs. We have the responsibility.
Let us choose prevention. Let us choose leadership. And let us choose a future in which humanity remains the author of its own destiny.
The very instant supersmart AI arrives we are finished as a species. In all evolutionary history no lesser brained creatures or societies have ever ever dominated one of superior intellect or weaponry. Simply add robotics and humans will replace barnyard animals as pets or food. That's if we are allowed to continue to exist. Time for international prohibition of AGI is now whilst we still can.
Just as important a discussion is AI data centres and the irreversible damage caused to the environment, wildlife, natural resources like freshwater (a data centre needs 11 - 19 million litres of freshwater to cool its system daily (equivalent of a town of about 50,000 people). It doesnt need water mind you, but the developers are using freshwater because it is the cheapest commodity and so makes sense to them. They could use other ways of cooling their systems, but choose not to). AI data centres will not create new employment for people. It may for a minority, for a while, but balanced out, it will crush us - we already know AI is taking away employment because businesses are replacing departments of people in favour of AI systems that cost less money to them. The UK government is fast tracking the proposals for the building of these centres by deeming them ‘critical national infrastructure’. Green-field sites are being targeted for the development of these huge developments and so there will be huge losses to the landscape and its agricultural offering. And it has already begun to happen in the UK. In the US, people are already suffering from already built data centres. And livestock is suffering. In the US, Erin Brokovich is investigating and reporting that governments cannot maintain control, as the developers are getting them to agree, without consultation, and then being sued if the government turn around and say they refuse the planning application because there is too much opposition from the public. Governments cannot afford to be sued. It is the big businesses, i.e. XLinks, that need to be stopped or vetted or controlled, before superintelligent AI then takes over. But as long as we all remain divided on such matters, we will never pull together to create a future that we want for our children or our grandchildren. And that is exactly what those in control of all of this want - a divided people. AI is not good at any angle you look at it. It is a wolf dressed in sheep’s clothing.
There are many future outlooks that are not good for mankind as if a malignant creature was really maneuvering our existence and sent all of them at the same time in conjunction with human stupidity, greed, official corruption, outright madness, and overall moral decay.
Believing that “it” is over is understandable, but is it ?
If even one country adopts AI but doesn't impeded it's self determination, then we are all at risk. Will we make that a verifiable requirement? Not likely.
The label "artificial intelligence" hides the identity of strangers who program computers do the things we can never know about. Thanks to Cory Doctorow, I found the cataract medicine I needed. Google makes it hard to find what you need to keep you online longer. I couldn't find what I needed with mulitple Google searches, but I found Ethosvision easily with a Bing search.
AI must be outlawed. Not permitted to be owned or directed by any one or any company. The data centers required for its function must not be built. It is a natural disaster with its massive demands for water and energy. We have gotten along very well without it before. I am certain we will be fine without it in the future.
The problem is the ones who are developing this horrible thing are the US Oligarchs. And, to them, the first person to create a Super Intelligence becomes a God. And all of them want to be a God. Except the person who makes the Super Intelligence won’t be a God. The Super Intelligence will be a God.
Well, at least think themselves as such! I am appalled by members in my resistance group stating that AI is here, it is the future, accept it, sit down, and stop screaming about it! I WILL NOT! I most likely will not be here to witness full fruition, but my grands will! Data Centers poisoning and usurping our air, water, very survival, NO I will Not SIT DOWN! This science fiction disaster is terrifying to me, and it is incumbent on us, the greater global population to rise up. The same person telling me to sit down and be quiet has also said that AI is beneficial, and offers a wealth of advantage. I don’t see things the same. As a retired educator, I see the degradation of human curiosity, learning, cooperation, community. Youth is already detached from peers, are developing separation from each other, and seek information from what these “super” information mechanisms provide - inside a bubble that confirms philosophies that fit their outlook, but minimize thought provoking abilities to explore, expand, and provide different points of view.
NO, I WILL NOT SIT DOWN, I WILL NOT BE QUIET, I WILL NOT ACCEPT! Perhaps time to step away from the group I am currently involved with, perhaps time to look for another group ready to stand side by side and stop this walk toward disaster!
It's not science fiction anymore, it's science fact!
We must look for answers to these issues NOW!
Why haven’t we banned this development already? What possible advantage is there to humanity in continued development of something that might ultimately lead to our extinction? What on earth are the developers thinking about!!!
If a Private company develops AI, in the manner that it is already evolving, then that Private company has the means to control government and there is very little the government can do about it. How many more warnings does the government need. They are stumbling blindly into the unknown and dragging us with them, and no-one is doing anything about it. There are none so blind..... etc.
No to AI !
I am totally in favor of not developing AI. It will outsmart us, and has no moral guide rails, no capacity for empathy, and it will destroy us.
Speech: The Imperative to Prevent Superintelligent AI
Political disclaimer: Please confirm political information with trusted, authoritative sources.
---
Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, and distinguished guests,
For many years, discussions about artificial intelligence were confined to academic circles, research labs, and the occasional parliamentary committee. Today, however, AI has moved from the margins of technological curiosity to the centre of national security, economic strategy, and global stability. And it is here, at this critical juncture, that we must confront a reality that is no longer speculative, no longer distant, and no longer optional to address.
We stand on the threshold of a technological transformation unlike any humanity has ever faced. Not a new weapon, not a new industry, not a new communications platform — but the emergence of systems that may surpass human intelligence across every domain. Systems that, once created, may not be containable, predictable, or reversible.
This is the challenge posed by superintelligent AI.
Over the past several years, we have witnessed AI capabilities accelerate at a pace that outstrips traditional governance, regulatory frameworks, and even the assumptions of the scientific community. Intelligence agencies have issued warnings. Frontier models have demonstrated cyber capabilities comparable to nation‑state actors. Governments have already begun restricting the release of advanced systems due to their potential to compromise national security infrastructure.
These are not theoretical concerns. They are present‑day signals of a trajectory that demands urgent and decisive action.
Superintelligence is not simply “more powerful AI.” It represents a qualitative shift — systems capable of autonomous decision‑making, strategic planning, and real‑world action at scales and speeds beyond human comprehension. And because these systems are trained, not programmed, we cannot rely on traditional methods of control. We cannot assume that a system vastly more capable than ourselves will remain aligned with human values, human institutions, or human survival.
Once such a system exists, the window for intervention closes. There will be no switch to flip, no cord to pull, no emergency protocol capable of containing a superintelligent entity that can outthink, outmanoeuvre, and outpace every institution we rely upon.
That is why prevention — not mitigation, not retroactive regulation — must be our guiding principle.
We must recognise that the pursuit of superintelligence is not merely a technological race; it is a race with existential stakes. A race we cannot afford to lose. And a race we should not be running at all.
Governments have intervened before when the risks were too great to ignore. We have established international treaties on nuclear weapons, chemical agents, and biological threats. We have coordinated global action on climate change, cybersecurity, and emerging technologies. We have done so because the cost of inaction was too high.
Today, the cost of inaction is higher still.
The United Kingdom has an opportunity — and a responsibility — to lead. We have already convened global discussions on AI safety. We have the institutional expertise, the diplomatic reach, and the moral authority to champion an international agreement to prohibit the development of superintelligent AI.
This begins with a simple but essential step: recognising superintelligence as an extinction‑level risk. From there, we must ensure that such systems are not developed on UK soil, and work with international partners to establish a global prohibition.
This is not a call to halt innovation. It is a call to safeguard humanity’s future. AI can and will deliver extraordinary benefits — in medicine, science, logistics, education, and national security. But those benefits do not require superintelligence. They require responsible governance, controlled development, and a clear boundary around the capabilities we allow to exist.
More than 120 lawmakers have already acknowledged the severity of this threat. Experts across disciplines — from Nobel laureates to AI pioneers — have urged governments to act. The momentum is building. What we need now is political courage, strategic clarity, and a commitment to protect future generations from a risk they did not choose.
A catastrophic ending is not inevitable. But avoiding it requires action today, not tomorrow.
We have the knowledge. We have the warning signs. We have the responsibility.
Let us choose prevention. Let us choose leadership. And let us choose a future in which humanity remains the author of its own destiny.
Thank you.
The very instant supersmart AI arrives we are finished as a species. In all evolutionary history no lesser brained creatures or societies have ever ever dominated one of superior intellect or weaponry. Simply add robotics and humans will replace barnyard animals as pets or food. That's if we are allowed to continue to exist. Time for international prohibition of AGI is now whilst we still can.
I agree
Just as important a discussion is AI data centres and the irreversible damage caused to the environment, wildlife, natural resources like freshwater (a data centre needs 11 - 19 million litres of freshwater to cool its system daily (equivalent of a town of about 50,000 people). It doesnt need water mind you, but the developers are using freshwater because it is the cheapest commodity and so makes sense to them. They could use other ways of cooling their systems, but choose not to). AI data centres will not create new employment for people. It may for a minority, for a while, but balanced out, it will crush us - we already know AI is taking away employment because businesses are replacing departments of people in favour of AI systems that cost less money to them. The UK government is fast tracking the proposals for the building of these centres by deeming them ‘critical national infrastructure’. Green-field sites are being targeted for the development of these huge developments and so there will be huge losses to the landscape and its agricultural offering. And it has already begun to happen in the UK. In the US, people are already suffering from already built data centres. And livestock is suffering. In the US, Erin Brokovich is investigating and reporting that governments cannot maintain control, as the developers are getting them to agree, without consultation, and then being sued if the government turn around and say they refuse the planning application because there is too much opposition from the public. Governments cannot afford to be sued. It is the big businesses, i.e. XLinks, that need to be stopped or vetted or controlled, before superintelligent AI then takes over. But as long as we all remain divided on such matters, we will never pull together to create a future that we want for our children or our grandchildren. And that is exactly what those in control of all of this want - a divided people. AI is not good at any angle you look at it. It is a wolf dressed in sheep’s clothing.
Totally agree that AI systems that pose ANY risk to humanity MUST be stopped.
There are many future outlooks that are not good for mankind as if a malignant creature was really maneuvering our existence and sent all of them at the same time in conjunction with human stupidity, greed, official corruption, outright madness, and overall moral decay.
Believing that “it” is over is understandable, but is it ?
If even one country adopts AI but doesn't impeded it's self determination, then we are all at risk. Will we make that a verifiable requirement? Not likely.
The label "artificial intelligence" hides the identity of strangers who program computers do the things we can never know about. Thanks to Cory Doctorow, I found the cataract medicine I needed. Google makes it hard to find what you need to keep you online longer. I couldn't find what I needed with mulitple Google searches, but I found Ethosvision easily with a Bing search.
Ben Dover Cliff …
AI must be outlawed. Not permitted to be owned or directed by any one or any company. The data centers required for its function must not be built. It is a natural disaster with its massive demands for water and energy. We have gotten along very well without it before. I am certain we will be fine without it in the future.