Written by: Techub News Organized

At a recent private event hosted by a16z crypto, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin engaged in a deep conversation lasting 97 minutes with Beff Jezos, a key proponent of the "Effective Accelerationism" (E/acc) movement. This rare debate brought together two highly influential thinkers in the fields of crypto and AI to confront the core issue of the technological acceleration era: Should we fully embrace and accelerate technological progress, or should we cautiously plan and actively guide its direction to prevent potential harms?

Intellectual Origins: Technological Acceleration and Human Response

At the beginning of the dialogue, Vitalik Buterin placed technological accelerationism within a broader historical context. He pointed out that rapid technological change has been a fundamental fact of human civilization in the past century, and this acceleration is continuously speeding up. Looking back, the early 20th century was filled with a naive optimism about new technologies such as chemistry and electricity, leading to rapid improvements in living standards, the liberation of women, and increased life expectancy. However, the devastating powers of the two World Wars shattered this naivety, giving rise to ideologies such as "postmodernism"—where humans began to try to understand a world after their beliefs were shattered.

Buterin believes that today we are witnessing a new version of this cycle: many people grew up in the postmodern beliefs of the 1960s or "hippie environmentalism," but these beliefs have now been shaken by reality (for example, shutting down nuclear power plants may leave the nation dependent on other energy sources). Technological acceleration is an objectively existing "gravity," and movements like E/acc and D/acc (Buterin's proposed "Decentralized/Defensive/Democratic Accelerationism") are the latest attempts by humanity to understand and respond to this accelerating force.

Beff Jezos, starting from the first principles of physics, explained his understanding of E/acc. He argued that E/acc arises from a fundamental question: What is the generative process that created us, our civilization, and technology? His daily work (conducting research on generative AI in devices) led him to apply the generative framework of physics to civilization as a whole. He observed that systems tend to self-adapt and complicate to capture work from their environment and dissipate heat energy, a basic process driven by the second law of thermodynamics. All progress, "acceleration," and everything we see today are underpinned by this fundamental driving force.

Jezos further elaborated on the principle of the "selfish bit": whether it is genes, memes, chemical formulas, product designs, or policies, any piece of information is competing for its own existence. Selection pressure filters these bits based on their "usefulness" to their respective systems—do they help the system maintain itself, predict the environment, capture energy, and dissipate heat? Do they contribute to growth and replication? Therefore, what E/acc attempts to design is a cultural "mind software": those who adopt this culture will literally have a higher "fitness," increasing their chances of survival in the future. E/acc does not seek to eliminate everyone; on the contrary, it aims to save everyone. Holding a deceleration (decel) or degrowth mindset will reduce the likelihood of individuals, organizations, companies, and even nations becoming part of the future.

Entropy, Value, and Intentional Acceleration

Buterin also approached the concept of thermodynamic entropy but arrived at different conclusions. He explained entropy increase using a simplified model: after mixing hot and cold gases, the amount of "unknown" information we have about the system (entropy) increases. An increase in entropy means our "ignorance" about the world is growing. However, education makes us smarter, which seems contradictory. Buterin pointed out that the key is that while we are overall "knowing" less about the universe, the bits we do know are becoming increasingly "meaningful" to us. There exists a trade-off: as we consume something (entropy increase), we are also gaining something.

He proposed that this gained substance essentially stems from our "values": we cherish life, happiness, and joy. We find a planet filled with prosperous and beautiful humans more interesting than Jupiter, even though describing every particle state of Jupiter requires more information bits. Value comes from within ourselves. Thus, the core question of acceleration lies in: What do we want to accelerate?

Buterin used a metaphor to illustrate the risks of blind acceleration: if you randomly set a certain weight of a large language model (LLM) to 9 billion, the best outcome is that the parts outside this weight fail (the model weakens), and the worst outcome is that the model becomes completely garbage. Human society resembles a complex LLM; accelerating indiscriminately on any part may lead to losing all value. Therefore, the critical issue is: How do we accelerate "intentionally"?

Jezos concurred that the ultimate goal of acceleration is to climb the "Kardashev scale," a metric for measuring a civilization's ability to utilize energy, but emphasized that E/acc is a "meta-cultural prescription" rather than a specific culture itself. It provides a meta-heuristic approach: whatever policies or actions are taken, they should maximize our influence in the process of climbing the Kardashev scale. This is a kind of "Lindy culture" aimed at long-term effectiveness.

Risk Divergence: Unipolar, Multipolar, and the Power of Openness

Both parties agreed that technological acceleration brings enormous opportunities but also accompanies significant risks, although their emphases on risk and response strategies exhibit subtle differences.

Buterin elaborated on two types of risks that concern him: firstly, "multipolar risk," where many individuals misuse powerful technology to do very bad things, such as everyone gaining access to nuclear weapons capabilities at convenience stores; secondly, "unipolar risk," referring to excessive concentration of power, for example, the combination of AI and surveillance technology possibly leading to "inescapable permanent dictatorship." His recent observations in Russia deepened this concern: protests have shifted from "impossible" to "impossible and identifiable by cameras, with someone knocking on the door at 2 AM a week later."

Thus, the core idea of D/acc is to actively shape the "currents" of technological capital to create a safer world for "pluralism." This includes enhancing biosafety, cybersecurity, information security, developing open-source defensive technologies, and promoting verifiable hardware. He cited an ongoing project: developing sensors that can collect air quality data but process the data locally encrypted and anonymized through techniques like fully homomorphic encryption (FHE), ultimately aggregating calculations on the server side without exposing any personal data, thereby enhancing security while protecting privacy.

Jezos also strongly opposes the excessive concentration of AI power. He believes that the E/acc movement has from the start supported open source, aiming to diffuse AI power. If there is a cognitive ability gap between individuals and centralized entities (such as the government), the latter will be able to establish a complete world model of the former's mind and engage in "prompt engineering," thereby completely controlling individuals. Therefore, we need to symmetrize AI power, allowing everyone their own models and hardware. "Just as the Second Amendment is intended to prevent the government from monopolizing violence to maintain checks on the government, AI also needs this."

He further pointed out that the current computational paradigm (requiring hundreds of kilowatts for running powerful AI models on large clusters) is inaccessible to individuals. We need more energy-efficient AI hardware to achieve "intelligent densification," allowing individuals to own and control AI as an extension of their cognition. He believes that current investment in alternative hardware is vastly insufficient; if all profits are consumed by the "green giants" (referring to existing semiconductor giants), it will lead to the "hyperparameter betting risk" of the technological exploration space, adversely affecting the maintenance of diversity (variance) in exploration.

The host pointed out that both sides share a high degree of consensus on core concepts such as open source, open hardware, and defensive technology, both committed to addressing centralization risks through the diffusion of power and knowledge.

Core Confrontation: Speed, Control, and the "One-Time Opportunity"

The most intense part of the debate revolved around the speed of AI development and control. When asked by Jezos why he wanted to ban data centers (referring to a viewpoint proposed by Buterin), Buterin clarified his position.

He acknowledged that AI is progressing rapidly, and the confidence interval for AGI timelines has shrunk from estimates of 2028-2200 just a few years ago. His concern is that such rapid changes may occur in destructive or even irreversible ways, for example, shaking the job market, and when AI capabilities far exceed those of humans, whether it will be interested in human well-being. He reiterated his metaphor about LLM weight adjustments: some accelerations enhance like "gradient descent," while others randomly setting parameters to 9 billion may destroy the system.

Jezos countered that any hyperparameter (including learning rates) can be searched and optimized. Acceleration itself is a constant trial and error to seek optimal adaptation and growth paths. He argued that the idea that such a powerful technology capable of creating massive economic value could lead to system collapse without recovery is insane; the opposite is true. Systems will always adapt to new technologies and make choices most beneficial for overall growth. Delaying will only incur enormous opportunity costs, missing the chance to save more lives, support more populations, and realize a more prosperous future.

Buterin agreed that the opportunity cost is "difficult to measure," but his key disagreement with Jezos is: he believes humanity and today's Earth civilization do not possess that level of resilience; we "only have one chance." He proposed a thought experiment: if spending 4 more years (starting in 2028) could reduce the "doom probability" (p(doom)) by one-quarter to one-third, while the benefits of acceleration involve saving tens of millions of lives annually (by ending aging), then mathematically, being cautious indeed becomes advantageous in certain cases.

Jezos, on the other hand, believes that trying to "pause" development to resolve alignment problems is unrealistic. "You cannot guarantee the safety of a system more complex and expressive than you can understand forever." The only measure against the complexity of that safety is to enhance one's own intelligence. He posits that we already have the technology for alignment greater than individual humans, which is "capitalism"—coordinating self-interests through the exchange of monetary value. He suggested that cryptographic technology could serve as a "coupling" mechanism between AI and humans, establishing trust between purely AI entities, AI companies, and hybrid human companies in a digital world where violent enforcement fails.

Future Visions: Decade, Century, and Billion-Year Horizons

At the end of the dialogue, both parties painted their future outlooks across different time scales.

Decade Dimension: Buterin believes the top priority is to prevent a third World War while preparing for a world with higher capabilities, including significantly enhancing cybersecurity, biosafety, and information security. The optimistic vision painted by Jezos is: we have extremely powerful and beneficial AIs; personalized AI computing becomes a cognitive extension that we own and control, akin to another hemisphere of the brain; technologies like neural links begin to emerge; biotechnology achieves significant breakthroughs, with costs decreasing (reversing "Eroom's Law"); most companies will be highly hybrid AI-human forms, allowing us to tackle more complex and valuable tasks.

Century Dimension: Jezos predicts that within a century, everyone will achieve "soft merge," closely integrating with personal AIs. We may have already terraformed Mars; AIs will primarily exist in Dyson spheres around the Sun to utilize energy. Buterin, however, focuses on the challenges of a "spooky era": how humanity should position itself when AIs are a million times smarter than any of us. He opposes the vision of "joyful retirement," believing it contains inherent instability (AIs may covet the calculations that these "meat bags" can perform) and contradicts the essence of humanity that "the meaning of life lies in the ability to act in ways that have a real impact on the world." He hopes to explore paths of human-machine integration/uploading while preserving the rights of some individuals to remain "normal," with Earth serving as a home for these people.

Billion-Year Dimension: Jezos envisions our biology having evolved significantly, possibly into biocomposite hybrids, and having reached other stars. Buterin did not elaborate on this scale.

Jezos summarized that the key lies in ensuring everyone has access to these powerful technologies, preventing anyone from centralizing control under the guise of "for your own good," which would lead to a dark future. Buterin emphasized that the core of his argument is "achieving diversity," while Jezos's core can be summarized as "maximizing variance," with deep resonance between the two.

Finally, both agreed that cryptographic technology will play a key role in future human-machine collaboration and trust building, and committed to continuing in-depth discussions on this topic. This debate not only clarified the ideological threads of E/acc and D/acc but also revealed that in an era of technological frenzy, profound reflections on human agency, risks, and hopes continue to evolve amid intense clashes.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。