It seems to me that there are basically two approaches to preventing an UFAI intelligence explosion: a) making sure that the first intelligence explosion is a a FAI instead; b) making sure that intelligence explosion never occurs. The first one involves solving (with no margin for error) the philosophical/ethical/logical/mathematical problem of defining FAI, and in addition the sociological/political problem of doing it "in time", convincing everyone else, and ensuring that the first intelligence explosion occurs according to this resolution. The second one involves just the sociological/political problem of convincing everyone of the risks and banning/discouraging AI research "in time" to avoid an intelligence explosion.

Naively, it seems to me that the second approach is more viable--it seems comparable in scale to something between stopping use of CFCs (fairly easy) and stopping global warming (very difficult, but it is premature to say impossible). At any rate, sounds easier than solving (over a few year/decades) so many hard philosophical and mathematical problems, with no margin for error and under time pressure to do it ahead of UFAI developing.

However, it seems (from what I read on LW and found quickly browsing the MIRI website; I am not particularly well informed, hence writing this on the Stupid Questions thread) that most of the efforts of MIRI are on the first approach. Has there been a formal argument on why it is preferable, or are there efforts on the second approach I am unaware of? The only discussion I found was Carl Shulman's "Arms Control and Intelligence Explosions" paper, but it is brief and nothing like a formal analysis comparing the benefits of each strategy. I am worried the situation might be biased by the LW/MIRI kind of people being more interested in (and seeing as more fun) the progress on the timeless philosophical problems necessary for (a) than the political coalition building and propaganda campaigns necessary for (b).