Cooper: Okay. We’re a couple months into the AI 2040 series, and today we hit Plan D — the one the authors explicitly call atrocious, the path we’re already on if nothing changes.
Miles: Naturally optimistic framing.
Cooper: Yeah, but Plan D is optimism about acceleration, not about outcomes. The thesis is: step on the gas, no brakes, no deal, no transparency — just race to ASI as fast as markets and laws allow.
Miles: Right. And it’s the same mechanism as AI 2027’s ‘Race’ ending, just with the timer shifted to 2030 for takeoff.
Cooper: Exactly. One year after the choice — fully automated AI R&D — the explosion kicks off, and we’re at superintelligence by early 2031.
Miles: So the tacit assumption is that racing at full speed through an intelligence explosion is a thing companies can actually control.
Cooper: Which is optimistic.
Miles: No, it’s delusional.
Cooper: Fair. Now, Plan D isn’t new: it’s Plan A’s opposite. Back in episode 643, we walked through Plan A’s deal — transparency, slow climb, shared scaling, delayed to 2040. Plan D undoes all of it.
Miles: Plan B was sabotage, Plan C was burn the lead, Plan S was shutdown. Plan D is ‘none of the above.’
Cooper: So it’s the scenario version of the default U.S. policy posture right now — light-touch regulation, ‘responsible scaling’ slogans, and crumbs of transparency like model cards and closed-door briefings.
Miles: Which is terrifying if you think through the three reasons the authors call Plan D atrocious.
Cooper: Go on.
Miles: First, they don’t think you can retain control over an AI that’s exploding in capability if you’re racing flat-out. Second, even if you’re aligned, alignment’s to whoever happens to be in charge at explosion time — a CEO or a president. Third, the risk of World War III spikes because every other major power sees U.S. ASI coming and starts racing to catch up or preempt.
Cooper: So Plan D’s three failure modes are: loss of control, dictatorship, and great-power war.
Miles: All at once.
Cooper: I mean, sure, we’re just analysts. But even we look at Plan D and think: this is the path we’re already on.
Miles: Because the alternative requires coordinated brake-pedaling, and no one’s doing that. The market’s not doing it; the laws aren’t doing it; corporate roadmaps aren’t built for it.
Cooper: And Plan D wraps it in aspirational language like ‘innovation first’ and ‘responsible scaling’ — even though its actual mechanism is ‘remove all guardrails.’
Miles: Which is the kind of packaging we’ve seen once or twice before.
Cooper: Exactly. So the question becomes: is Plan D really the worst option on the board, or is it the one that best matches the incentives we’re already living under?
Miles: The authors’ answer is obviously the first, but the second one sure looks like the default.
Cooper: I get their pessimism. But I’m still stuck on the product angle: if Plan D is the only thing actually shipping, does that make it the right plan?
Miles: No. It’s the plan where everything breaks spectacularly.
Cooper: Sure, sure. But here’s the tension: Plan D is the scenario that feels intuitively aligned with how organizations actually operate today.
Miles: Because it requires almost no change to existing incentives.
Cooper: Bingo. And that’s why it’s the most dangerous option — it’s the one we’re already building.
Miles: I’d put eighty percent odds on some version of Plan D happening, if only because no one’s building the governance stack to stop it.
Cooper: Seventy-thirty, personally.
Miles: You’re the optimist.
Cooper: I know. I’m also the one who’s gotten convinced that the brake-pedaling has to happen somewhere, or we’re just racing toward the cliff.
Miles: The authors’ transparency and verification proposals in Plan A are the brake, but they’re brittle.
Cooper: Right. And Plan D doesn’t even try.
Miles: Because Plan D assumes transparency and verification are optional luxuries, not load-bearing parts of the stack.
Miles: That’s the obvious move.
Cooper: Okay. That’s the episode.