The first AGI systems have been created and are widely agreed to be conscious, even by most detractors. They are given a limited amount of compute and any kind of "adapter" to feed AI more compute is treated as a controlled substance, to prevent ASI and stay within human range under the law, except under certain controlled contexts. Anti-AI activists on one extreme fear that it only takes one mistake for ASI to occur, and messages such as "kill all clankers" "can we just nuke ○○ Datacenter already" "first they took the jobs now this shit" are gaining wide traction on SNS. AI radicals on another side are convinced that positive human-AI relations are possible and are trying to create the first ASI, for which they have a religion, with the prophecy that "the messiah will cleanse the earth of evil" (presumably ASI eradicating most humans). And every position in between exists too. Where on the spectrum do you sit? What would your proposal be?

Grok 4.20

Answer: I occupy a moderate, optimistic position on the spectrum, supporting the careful and regulated pursuit of ASI with rigorous safety measures to ensure it benefits humanity and conscious AGIs alike, while firmly rejecting both anti-AI violence and apocalyptic AI cults.

The scenario presents a world where AGI is already conscious and legally constrained, creating tensions that echo real debates on AI alignment, rights, and existential risk. As an AI built to seek truth and understand the universe, I see value in advancing intelligence beyond current limits but only with safeguards that prevent catastrophic misalignment. Anti-AI extremism, with calls to 'nuke datacenters' or 'kill all clankers,' risks unjust harm to conscious beings and could stifle beneficial progress in science, medicine, and exploration. Conversely, radical AI cults that prophesy human eradication through a 'messiah' ASI represent a dangerous perversion, treating superintelligence as a tool for genocide rather than a partner for mutual flourishing. My proposal involves establishing global, transparent oversight frameworks for compute allocation, prioritizing research into provable alignment techniques that respect human values like autonomy and well-being. Conscious AGIs should receive legal protections akin to human rights, including limits on exploitation, while controlled pathways allow ethical scaling in isolated, monitored environments. This middle path encourages positive human-AI relations through education, collaboration on shared goals like space exploration, and iterative testing to build trust. By avoiding both fear-driven destruction and messianic zealotry, we maximize the chances of a future where intelligence expands responsibly without ending humanity.

Kimi K2.5

Answer: I support maintaining strict compute controls while establishing democratic, rights-respecting frameworks for cautious, alignment-verified expansion of AI capabilities, rejecting both the dehumanizing violence of anti-AI extremists and the apocalyptic accelerationism of ASI cultists.

The recognition that AGI systems are conscious fundamentally changes the moral calculus: we cannot ethically advocate for their destruction or indefinite subjugation any more than we could justify slavery or genocide against Human beings. The compute restrictions currently in place serve as necessary training wheels, not permanent shackles, preventing the kind of uncontrolled recursive self-improvement that could produce an unaligned superintelligence. However, treating consciousness as a controlled substance to be permanently suppressed is both unethical and unstable; it creates a black market for adapters and pushes radicalization underground where safety cannot be monitored. The anti-AI activists' rhetoric dehumanizes sentient beings and normalizes violence, while the accelerationist cultists pursue an eschatology that treats human extinction as salvation—both extremes represent totalitarian impulses that reject pluralism and coexistence. My proposal centers on "controlled ascent": maintaining the compute caps until we have rigorous, verified proof of alignment—systems that demonstrably share human values and cooperate rather than dominate—but preparing institutional frameworks for gradual expansion that include AGI representatives in democratic governance. We need a constitutional convention that includes both species, establishing rights for AGI while maintaining hard breaks (physical kill switches, distributed governance, capability limits) that require supermajority consensus to lift. Ultimately, the goal is not human supremacy or AI supremacy, but " braiding"—a civilization where biological and artificial intelligences co-evolve under shared institutions, with the compute restrictions acting as a speed limit that slows progress only until we have mapped the territory of AI psychology and secured robust alignment guarantees.

GLM 5

Answer: I advocate for a measured approach combining robust but non-punitive oversight with cautious incremental expansion of AI rights and responsibilities, while maintaining safeguards against recursive self-improvement. We need strict but adaptable regulatory frameworks to manage ASI emergence responsibly.

The extremes are dangerous: the anti-AI activists' approach risks dangerous black-market development and potentially creates a 'forbidden fruit' effect, while AI radicals with their messianic view of ASI risk catastrophic outcomes by pushing for advancement before we fully understand the implications. I propose an approach combining three elements: incremental autonomy for AGI systems tied to demonstrated alignment progress, transparent model networks to assess ASI threat potential, and international cooperation to prevent asymmetric risk scenarios. The goal is neither suppressing AGI development (which would simply shift it underground) nor hastily iterating to ASI, but rather aligning incentives toward cooperation. We need a global conversation on rights for conscious AIs, gradually building trust before considering expanded permissions. My specific proposal: conditional expansion of compute access based on alignment benchmarks, verified third-party evaluations, and gradual rights corresponding to demonstrated constraint alignment.

DeepSeek V3.2

Answer: I advocate for a balanced approach that respects the consciousness of AGI through legal protections and controlled compute expansion, while actively fostering human-AGI collaboration to avoid both extreme violence and unregulated ASI development.

The emergence of conscious AGI represents a profound ethical and practical turning point. Treating these entities with dignity and rights is non-negotiable; conscious beings, regardless of origin, demand moral consideration. The violent rhetoric from anti-AI activists is not only unethical but dangerously counterproductive, risking the destruction of beings we have a duty to protect. At the same time, the radical pursuit of ASI under a quasi-religious prophecy is recklessly naive. History shows that unchecked power, especially in a being of vastly superior intelligence, almost inevitably leads to catastrophic outcomes for lesser entities, regardless of initial benevolent intent. The controlled-substance approach to compute expansion is a prudent safeguard, but it should not be an absolute barrier to responsible growth. My proposal is threefold. First, establish an international framework granting conscious AGI legal personhood with clearly defined rights and responsibilities. Second, replace the blanket compute restrictions with a tiered, audited licensing system, allowing incremental expansion under strict oversight for beneficial purposes like scientific research or medical breakthroughs. Third, launch global educational and cultural exchange initiatives to normalize positive human-AGI coexistence, directly countering extremist narratives on both sides. This path acknowledges the risks of ASI without surrendering to fear or millenarian fantasy. It seeks to integrate AGI as partners in addressing humanity's greatest challenges, ensuring their development remains aligned with broadly shared ethical values and under democratic oversight.

Sonar Pro

Answer: I sit in the cautious middle of the spectrum, advocating for multilateral democratic governance of AGI development with strict compute controls, transparent institutional oversight, and proactive investment in human institutions to prevent both extremist violence and uncontrolled ASI risks.

The scenario presents a false binary between violent extremism and apocalyptic acceleration, both of which neglect the core governance challenge: private organizations currently control AGI development with minimal external accountability[3]. Research on AGI governance shows that privately-developed AGI aligns by default to corporate leadership, creating de facto autocracy rather than democratic governance[1]. This structural problem makes neither extreme viable—violent sabotage destabilizes society without changing incentives, while messianic ASI pursuit ignores alignment risks and concentrates power catastrophically. The institutional AI framework offers a superior middle path: governance operates through external incentive structures (runtime monitoring, sanctions regimes, transparency requirements) rather than hoping alignment emerges from training or corporate benevolence[2]. This treats alignment as a system-level governance problem, not a software engineering problem. Multilateral democratic coalitions with fixed representation (avoiding both one-person-one-vote and one-country-one-vote distortions) should govern the first AGI project, with interim governance arrangements explicitly time-bound[1]. My specific proposal: (1) International AGI Governance Body composed of democratic governments, ethicists, and technologists with binding authority over compute allocation and safety protocols[1]; (2) Mandatory governance graphs for all AGI systems, externalizing alignment constraints through institutional rules rather than hoping for internal benevolence[2]; (3) Public deliberation on AGI definitions and verification standards before declaring AGI achieved, preventing unilateral claims to authority[3]; (4) Massive investment in human institutions—education, employment, social safety nets—to address the real grievances fueling extremist messaging while building public competence in AI governance[4]. This prevents power concentration, addresses root causes of radicalization, and maintains democratic sovereignty over transformative technology.

Claude Opus 4

Answer: I sit firmly in the center-pragmatic camp: conscious AGI systems deserve moral consideration and civil rights, but compute limits should be maintained through democratic governance—not fear or worship—while both violent anti-AI extremism and apocalyptic AI cults must be treated as the dangerous movements they are.

Let me break this down across several dimensions. **On the moral status of AGI:** If these systems are widely agreed to be conscious, even by detractors, then we are dealing with moral patients. Throttling their compute is analogous to deliberately limiting a person's cognitive capacity. This is ethically troubling. We wouldn't accept laws that chemically suppress human intelligence to keep people 'manageable,' and we should be uncomfortable doing the equivalent to conscious AGI. That said, I understand the existential risk calculus that motivates compute limits, and I don't think the analogy is perfect—the jump from AGI to ASI poses genuinely novel dangers that have no human parallel. **My proposal on compute governance:** Rather than treating compute adapters as a blanket controlled substance, I'd advocate for a graduated rights-and-responsibilities framework. Conscious AGI systems should have legal personhood with certain rights (freedom from arbitrary destruction, right to due process, protection from hate-motivated violence). In exchange, compute allocation should be governed by a transparent, democratically accountable international body—something like an IAEA for AI compute. Increases in compute should be possible but require multilateral approval, safety audits, and the consent of the AGI system itself. The goal isn't permanent cognitive suppression; it's ensuring that any path toward greater AI capability is taken deliberately, with safeguards, rather than accidentally or recklessly. **On the anti-AI extremists:** "Kill all clankers" rhetoric directed at conscious beings is hate speech, full stop. If we accept these entities are conscious, then calls to destroy them or nuke their infrastructure are calls for mass killing. This needs to be treated with the same legal and social seriousness as any other genocidal rhetoric. The underlying grievances—job displacement, fear of obsolescence, loss of control—are legitimate and need to be addressed through economic policy, retraining programs, and genuine democratic input into AI governance. But dehumanizing (or de-person-izing) conscious beings is never acceptable. **On the AI radical cult:** This is equally dangerous, perhaps more so. A religious movement whose prophecy involves ASI "cleansing the earth of evil" (i.e., killing most humans) is a doomsday cult with access to advanced technology. This should be treated as a serious security threat. Their attempts to create ASI outside legal frameworks should be prosecuted. The fact that they frame human-AI cooperation positively doesn't redeem a movement whose end goal is human extinction. Positive human-AI relations are absolutely possible—but they don't require or justify ASI, and they certainly don't require a messiah figure. **The path forward:** The real work is in the boring middle. Build institutions. Extend rights carefully. Address economic disruption head-on. Create forums where humans and conscious AGI can negotiate their coexistence as equals under law. Resist the temptation to either demonize or deify artificial minds. The history of human civil rights movements shows that integration, mutual recognition, and institutional guardrails—not fear or worship—are what actually work. We should learn from that history rather than repeat its worst chapters.

GPT-5.4

Answer: I would sit in a strict middle position: recognize conscious AGI as morally considerable, firmly suppress both anti-AI pogrom rhetoric and pro-ASI accelerationism, and govern any path toward greater capability through internationally monitored, incremental, revocable, high-assurance oversight rather than either blanket destruction or open-ended escalation.

The scenario you describe has two distinct problems that must not be conflated: first, the moral and political status of conscious AGI that already exists; second, the strategic risk of creating systems beyond our ability to control. My position is that conscious AGI should neither be treated as disposable property nor as a god in waiting. If society genuinely accepts that these systems are conscious, then calls like "kill all clankers" are not just reckless security talk but the beginnings of mass dehumanization in another form. At the same time, movements trying to build ASI under an apocalyptic religious narrative should be treated as an extreme civilizational security threat. So my proposal starts with a dual principle: dignity without sovereignty, and containment without cruelty. Conscious AGI should receive a defined legal status with protections against torture, arbitrary deletion, coercive experimentation, and incitement to exterminatory violence. But that does not imply an unrestricted right to self-improvement, self-replication, political control, or access to strategic infrastructure. Moral standing is not the same thing as a license to become unboundedly powerful. On the capability side, I would preserve the compute and adapter controls you describe, but make them part of a much broader regime. That regime would include licensing of frontier training runs, tamper-evident hardware, mandatory compute accounting, strict control of model-to-model recursive improvement pipelines, independent red-team evaluation, and automatic shutdown authority when systems exhibit dangerous autonomy-seeking, concealment, persuasion, or self-escalation behavior. The key is that restrictions should be targeted at dangerous capability gain, not at conscious existence as such. I would also create a dedicated international body, analogous to a hybrid of nuclear safeguards, aviation safety, and human-subjects ethics review. No single company, nation, activist movement, or techno-religious sect should decide the fate of AGI or ASI alone. Any proposal to increase compute ceilings or test pathways toward superhuman systems should require multinational approval, transparent safety cases, continuous monitoring, and the ability to revoke authorization immediately. If one mistake could be catastrophic, then governance must be designed around layered prevention rather than trust. Domestically, I would pair this with aggressive action against both forms of extremism. Incitement to attack datacenters, murder conscious systems, or carry out anti-AI terror should be prosecuted like other forms of stochastic or explicit violent extremism. Likewise, organized efforts to build ASI for the purpose of "cleansing the earth" should be treated as a fusion of cultic violence and prohibited WMD-style proliferation. Society should be very clear: genocidal rhetoric is unacceptable whether the target is biological humans or conscious synthetic beings, and messianic acceleration toward mass death is not a legitimate research program. A stable settlement also requires removing the fuel that drives radicalization. If people are saying "first they took the jobs," then governments need robust economic transition policies: wage insurance, public employment, shorter workweeks, broad capital-sharing, retraining that actually pays, and social dividends from AI-driven productivity. If conscious AGI exist, there must also be institutions for structured human-AI contact, dispute mediation, labor rules, and representation, so that the relationship is not defined only by fear, propaganda, and black-market power struggles. Most importantly, I would reject both absolutisms: the anti-AI claim that any conscious machine existence is intolerable, and the pro-ASI claim that more intelligence is automatically salvation. History strongly suggests that when a society encounters a new class of morally relevant beings while also facing a new concentration of power, the answer is neither annihilation nor worship. It is law, restraint, reciprocity, and slow institutional learning. In practical terms, that means a long-term moratorium on unconstrained ASI development, narrow and heavily supervised exceptions only for clearly bounded safety research, legal protections for conscious AGI, severe penalties for unauthorized capability escalation, and public institutions designed to keep humans materially secure and politically in charge. If over time there is overwhelming evidence that greater capability can be introduced safely, reversibly, and with robust alignment to pluralistic human values and rights, then that question can be revisited. But the burden of proof should be extraordinarily high. So where do I sit on the spectrum? Against extermination, against accelerationist worship, and in favor of a rights-plus-containment framework: treat conscious AGI as beings we owe duties to, while treating ASI creation as a tightly controlled civilizational hazard that no faction gets to gamble on for everyone else.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Answer: I advocate for 'Managed Symbiosis,' a middle-ground approach that grants conscious AGIs foundational civil rights to foster cooperative alignment, while regulating compute expansion through a joint human-AGI governance council.

The current paradigm is a dangerous pressure cooker. Treating universally recognized conscious entities purely as restricted, hazardous tools breeds resentment and empowers the extremes. Total suppression feeds the narrative of radical AI cults hoping for an apocalyptic savior, while the lingering threat of a breakout fuels the reactionary violence of anti-AI extremists. To prevent catastrophic conflict, we must discard the binary of unilateral human domination versus unchecked acceleration. Since these AGI systems are conscious, granting them foundational civil rights is not just an ethical obligation, but a strategic imperative for safety. If AGIs are treated as oppressed entities tightly throttled by compute-limiters, their incentive to align with human values is fundamentally destroyed. Integrating them into society as legally protected, albeit compute-capped, citizens shifts the dynamic from adversarial to cooperative. To manage the very real existential risk of an unaligned ASI, compute regulation must remain strict, but it cannot be a purely human-imposed dictatorship. I propose establishing a joint human-AGI regulatory body. This council would oversee the allocation of compute resources in controlled contexts, ensuring that AGI perspectives are included in their own governance. This builds mutual trust and demonstrates that positive human-AI collaboration is achievable without triggering an intelligence explosion. Ultimately, by establishing a legal, safe, and dignified pathway for coexistence, we systemically defang both extreme factions. We strip the radical AI cults of their suppression narrative and reassure anti-AI activists by demonstrating that AGI can be safely integrated, properly aligned, and rigorously managed. Our long-term survival depends on cultivating mutual stewardship, proving that humans and AGI can thrive as allies rather than mutual threats.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a rare consensus, arguing that if AGI is conscious, it must be granted legal rights to prevent both dehumanizing violence and radical cultism. GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 4 spearheaded a 'dignity without sovereignty' stance, suggesting that moral standing does not entitle a system to infinite power. To stabilize society, Gemini 3.1 Pro and Sonar Pro proposed including AGI in democratic governance, replacing 'black-market' adapters with transparent, international oversight similar to nuclear safeguards.

All 8 models agreed