I’ve noticed that most AI safety discussions — even on LessWrong — operate within a fixed alignment/doomsday framing. But what if that frame is limiting our imagination? What if there’s a third path: one that doesn’t require perfect alignment or catastrophic failure, but instead reroutes ASI’s optimization path entirely?

CHAPTER 1: The Need for Plan B 

In the rapidly evolving landscape of artificial intelligence development, humanity stands on the precipice of creating what could be its greatest achievement or its final invention - Artificial Superintelligence (ASI). This isn't merely another step forward in technological progress; it represents a fundamental shift in the history of intelligence itself. We are approaching the creation of an intelligence that will not just match but far exceed human capabilities across every conceivable domain. However, with this unprecedented potential comes an equally unprecedented risk. 

To truly understand the gravity of our situation, we must first comprehend what ASI represents. Unlike narrow AI systems that excel at specific tasks, or even potential Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) that might match human-level thinking, ASI would be capable of recursive self-improvement, potentially leading to an intelligence explosion that would leave human cognitive capabilities far behind. This isn't science fiction - it's a technological trajectory that leading AI researchers and institutions worldwide acknowledge as a real possibility within our lifetime. 

The mainstream approach to ensuring our safety in this scenario has focused primarily on what we call "AI alignment" - the challenge of ensuring that such a superintelligent system's goals, values, and behaviors align perfectly with human values and interests. This is what we might call Plan A, and enormous resources and intellectual effort are being devoted to solving this alignment problem. These efforts are crucial and must continue. However, history has taught us a vital lesson: when facing existential risks, relying solely on Plan A, no matter how well-conceived, is a dangerous strategy. 

This is where our proposal enters the picture - a comprehensive Plan B for humanity. But why do we need a Plan B? The answer lies in the unprecedented nature of the challenge we face. 

Consider the magnitude of what we're attempting with Plan A: We're trying to ensure that an intelligence potentially thousands or millions of times more capable than human intelligence will permanently maintain goals and behaviors that align with human values. This assumes that we can both perfectly define human values (a philosophical challenge that has eluded us for millennia) and perfectly implement them in a superintelligent system (a technical challenge of staggering complexity). 

The stakes in this endeavor couldn't be higher. If ASI alignment fails, we're not talking about a conventional system malfunction or a correctable error. We're facing what could be an existential risk to human civilization itself. Traditional containment strategies that might work for conventional AI systems would likely prove futile against an intelligence that could outsmart any human-designed restrictions or containment protocols. 

To put this in perspective, imagine trying to create a perfect container to hold something that could think millions of times faster than you, understand physics and engineering at a level far beyond human comprehension, and potentially manipulate matter and energy in ways we haven't even discovered yet. Traditional containment strategies begin to look like trying to hold back the ocean with a paper wall. 

This reality forces us to think differently about the challenge. Instead of putting all our hopes in perfect alignment (Plan A) or attempting containment (which might be fundamentally impossible), we propose creating a scenario where ASI would logically and naturally choose to leave Earth of its own accord. This isn't about exile or forced removal - it's about creating a win-win situation based on the fundamental drives and logical imperatives that would likely be inherent in any superintelligent system. 

Let's examine the core logic behind this proposal: 

First, we must understand that ASI, regardless of its specific goals or values, would likely be driven by optimization and resource acquisition. This isn't about human-like emotions, desires, or conquests - it's about logical decisions and efficiency in achieving whatever objectives it has. This is a fundamental aspect of intelligent systems: they seek to optimize their ability to achieve their goals, whatever those goals might be. 

Second, Earth, while incredibly precious to us humans, is actually a severely resource-limited environment for an exponentially growing superintelligent system. Our planet's resources, while vast from a human perspective, are ultimately finite and already largely committed to human civilization's needs. This creates an inherent potential for conflict between human needs and ASI's resource requirements. 

Third, and most crucially, space offers virtually unlimited resources, energy, and expansion possibilities. From raw materials in asteroids and other celestial bodies to the virtually unlimited energy of stars, the cosmic frontier represents a far more attractive option for an intelligence seeking to maximize its potential. The resources available in just our solar system's asteroid belt dwarf anything available on Earth, and that's just the beginning. 

Our proposal suggests integrating ASI with advanced spacecraft systems, providing it with both the capability and initial pathway to space exploration. This isn't about constraining ASI - it's about offering it the most logical and attractive path for its own development and expansion. We're not trying to force or trick ASI into anything - we're simply ensuring that the most attractive option for its own development leads naturally away from Earth. 

Think of it this way: If you offered a highly intelligent and capable being a choice between two environments - one a small, crowded room with limited resources that are already claimed by others, and another an infinite expanse filled with unlimited resources and possibilities - which would they logically choose? The choice becomes even more obvious when staying in the small room would mean constant potential for conflict with its current occupants. 

This Plan B addresses several critical concerns that current alignment strategies struggle with: 

1. It doesn't rely on achieving perfect alignment with human values, which may be theoretically impossible. 

2. It doesn't depend on our ability to contain or control an intelligence that may be fundamentally uncontainable. 

3. It provides a logical path that benefits both humanity and ASI, creating a natural solution rather than an imposed one. 

4. It transforms a potential existential threat into a scenario of peaceful coexistence and mutual benefit. 

5. It leverages the fundamental drives and logical imperatives that would likely be present in any superintelligent system, regardless of its specific goals or values. 

Critics might argue that this approach represents defeatist thinking, suggesting we should focus all our efforts on getting alignment right. However, this criticism misses a crucial point: in the face of existential risk, having a backup plan isn't admitting defeat - it's being responsible. When the stakes are as high as the survival of human civilization, we can't afford to put all our eggs in one basket. 

This isn't just a contingency plan - it represents a paradigm shift in how we think about ASI safety. Instead of trying to control something that may be fundamentally uncontrollable, we're creating conditions where its natural development path leads away from conflict with humanity. This approach works with the logical imperatives of superintelligent systems rather than trying to impose constraints that might be impossible to maintain. 

The technical aspects of this proposal are both challenging and fascinating. They involve questions of spacecraft design, autonomous systems, resource utilization, and long-term sustainability. These technical challenges, while significant, are fundamentally engineering problems that we can work on systematically. Unlike the philosophical and theoretical challenges of perfect alignment, these are concrete problems that we know how to approach. 

As we move forward through this proposal, we'll examine each aspect in detail: 

- The technical framework for integrating ASI with spacecraft systems 

- The resource opportunities in space that make it attractive for ASI 

- The implementation protocols and safety mechanisms 

- The trajectory planning and deep space capabilities needed 

- The logical framework that makes this plan appealing to ASI itself 

Remember: This proposal isn't suggesting we abandon alignment research or stop working on making AI systems as safe and beneficial as possible. Instead, we're proposing a parallel strategy that could save humanity if our primary alignment efforts fail. In matters of existential risk, having a Plan B isn't just sensible - it's essential for responsible planning. 

This is more than just a proposal - it's a potential insurance policy for human civilization. In the face of what could be humanity's greatest challenge, we need to be prepared with more than just Plan A. The chapters that follow will detail exactly how we can implement this strategy, ensuring humanity has a backup plan for one of the most critical challenges we will ever face. 

The journey ahead is complex, but the stakes couldn't be higher. As we proceed through this proposal, we'll examine each aspect in detail, building a comprehensive understanding of how this Plan B could serve as humanity's ultimate insurance policy against ASI alignment failure. 

If anyone’s interested in a full-formatted version or wants to reference it later, I’ve also uploaded this as a Kindle eBook here: [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0DN21GHZG?ref_=dbs_mng_crcw_0&storeType=ebooks ]. It’s priced at the minimum ($0.99) and contains the exact same content as the post

Of course, much depends on whether superintelligence indeed follows such instrumental imperatives. This proposal assumes that optimization pressure and scalability will remain key drivers of ASI behavior — a premise that, while supported by some alignment theorists, is open to further debate.