Peter Salib is an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Houston Law Center and co-director of the Center for Law & AI Risk. Simon Goldstein is an associate professor at the University of Hong Kong, a senior editor at AI Frontiers, and a visiting senior scholar at Forethought. They have written together about AI safety, AI rights, and the governance of advanced AI.
Their “null hypothesis”: today’s liberal institutions — free markets and democratic governance — may already hold most of the answers for governing the far future, and longtermists have underrated their power
Examining whether canonical social-science arguments for markets and democracy still hold under transformative AI, space colonization, and explosive growth, and claiming that most survive (and several get stronger)
Why they favour reasoning “at the margin” over designing a detailed end-state, and why proposals like viatopia and the long reflection sound liberal but risk illiberalism when actually implemented
Whether the standard case for markets — information aggregation, allocative efficiency, innovation — still bites once AGI can read off preferences directly
Why inequality is, in their view, a comparatively boring problem with a known solution (tax-and-transfer), why AI-specific taxes like a compute tax are misguided, and how the growth-versus-distribution trade-off changes when growth rates get very high
Dyson swarms and space resources: why they doubt there’s any real monopoly worry, since energy would be additive with free entry, and why property auctions might beat egalitarian allocation schemes
The arguments for democracy that persist post-AGI — public-choice/selectorate incentives and democracy as a commitment device — versus the epistemic arguments, which they think weaken
Why AGI could make autocracy more competitive (loyal AI bureaucrats and militaries removing the need for a human winning coalition), and what preserving democratic control requires in response
Handoffs to superintelligent AI and successionism, and their preferred alternative of extending the franchise to AIs with their own values rather than deferring wholesale
The history of new “technologies of democracy,” from the Federalist Papers to LLMs as impartial arbiters, and where each author thinks their own argument is weakest
Headline finding: I audited 17 AI Safety Talent programmes. Zero of 17 have published any comparison group, rejected-applicant follow-up, matched control or randomisation. Not one. Every programme that mentions a counterfactual does it by asking participants to self-report.
Background
At least $70 million...
I want to start by noting that I am amazed and somewhat in awe of what's been accomplished by the EA animal welfare movement. I am enthusiastically supportive of all campaigns that make living and dying conditions less bad for farmed animals.
I worked on such campaigns for almost 20 years, and I'm proud of that work.
That said, I do think it's a strategic error that the EA animal movement has so thoroughly moved on from advocacy for animal liberation and diet change.&n...
Author: Grace Ryba (she/her), Executive Director
TL;DR:
* BluePerch is a new animal welfare grantmaker.
* Grant applications aren't open yet - we're aiming to open applications in roughly mid-2027.
* We welcome early expressions of interest from potential grantseekers so we can notify you when applications open - express your interest here or see further details below.
* We're also seeking boa...
Facts Only
* Peter Salib is an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Houston Law Center and co-director of the Center for Law & AI Risk.
* Simon Goldstein is an associate professor at the University of Hong Kong, a senior editor at AI Frontiers, and a visiting senior scholar at Forethought.
* They have written together about AI safety, AI rights, and the governance of advanced AI.
* Their hypothesis is that current liberal institutions may hold most answers for governing the far future.
* The work examines whether social-science arguments for markets and democracy survive transformative changes in AI, space colonization, and growth.
* They question the viability of market justifications like information aggregation for preference assessment once AGI can read preferences directly.
* They analyze why inequality is seen as a solvable problem via tax-and-transfer, questioning specific AI taxes like a compute tax.
* The authors address the dynamic between growth rates and distribution under high growth scenarios.
* They question monopoly concerns regarding Dyson swarms and space resources, suggesting energy would permit free entry.
* They contrast public-choice incentives with epistemic arguments for democracy post-AGI.
* They explore successionism concerning handoffs to superintelligent AI.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The intellectual project centers on testing the resilience of established liberal socio-economic frameworks against profound technological shifts, particularly the emergence of AGI. The core tension arises from the mismatch between institutional structures designed for managing human-centric problems and the radically different demands posed by superintelligence and resource abundance. The focus on reasoning "at the margin" suggests a recognition that designing monolithic end-states is epistemically fraught; this reflects a deep skepticism about comprehensive foresight, suggesting that stable governance might emerge from incremental adjustments rather than grand blueprints. This approach implicitly challenges the foundational assumption that current liberal mechanisms are sufficient for managing exponential change, inviting an examination of whether concepts like allocative efficiency remain meaningful when computational capacity can supersede traditional economic constraints.
The implication drawn from the critique of existing structures points toward a necessary re-evaluation of political philosophy in the context of superintelligence. If AGI can potentially optimize outcomes, the historical reliance on democratic processes and market incentives as sufficient arbiters for long-term good becomes questionable, especially when considering autonomous systems in succession. The specific finding regarding the lack of control groups in AI safety talent programs signals a systemic gap: the field is not currently equipped with rigorous empirical methods to test these high-stakes governance questions against real-world scenarios. This suggests a pattern where expert discourse on future governance risks remaining purely normative unless it is rigorously grounded in experimental or comparative social science methodologies that can account for emergent, non-linear realities posed by advanced systems.
Bridge questions: If institutions are assumed to hold most answers, what specific counterfactuals would undermine the power of free markets and democratic incentives when confronted with a superintelligent agent? How does the preference for "margin" reasoning inherently protect against unintended illiberal outcomes in implementations like viatopia? What alternative frameworks might be necessary if current concepts of social value are rendered obsolete by autonomous optimization?
Sentinel — Human
The text demonstrates a combination of highly specialized, structured argumentation mixed with personal reflections, suggesting it is likely an analytical compilation or excerpt rather than pure synthetic generation.