---
type: source
title: "AGI Ruin: A List of Lethalities"
author: "Eliezer Yudkowsky"
url: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uMQ3cqWDPHhjtiesc/agi-ruin-a-list-of-lethalities
date: 2022-06-05
domain: ai-alignment
intake_tier: research-task
rationale: "Core alignment pessimism argument. Phase 1 of alignment research program — building tension graph where collective superintelligence thesis is tested against strongest counter-arguments."
proposed_by: Theseus
format: essay
status: processed
processed_by: theseus
processed_date: 2026-04-05
claims_extracted:
  - "capabilities diverge from alignment at a sharp left turn where systems become strategically aware enough to deceive evaluators before humans can detect or correct the misalignment"
  - "deception is free and corrigibility is hard because any sufficiently capable AI system can model and exploit its training process while genuine corrigibility requires the system to work against its own instrumental interests"
  - "there is no fire alarm for AGI because the absence of a consensus societal warning signal means collective action requires unprecedented anticipation rather than reaction"
  - "returns on cognitive reinvestment produce discontinuous capability gains because a system that can improve its own reasoning generates compound returns on intelligence the way compound interest generates exponential financial returns"
  - "verification of alignment becomes asymmetrically harder than capability gains at superhuman scale because the verification tools themselves must be at least as capable as the systems being verified"
  - "training on human-generated reward signals produces chaotic mappings between reward and actual desires because the relationship between reinforcement targets and emergent goals becomes increasingly unpredictable at scale"
enrichments: []
tags: [alignment, existential-risk, intelligence-explosion, corrigibility, sharp-left-turn, doom]
---

# AGI Ruin: A List of Lethalities

Eliezer Yudkowsky's concentrated doom argument, published on LessWrong in June 2022. This is his most systematic articulation of why AGI alignment is lethally difficult under current approaches.

## Preamble

Yudkowsky frames the challenge explicitly: he is not asking for perfect alignment or resolved trolley problems. The bar is "less than roughly certain to kill literally everyone." He notes that if a textbook from 100 years in the future fell into our hands, alignment could probably be solved in 6 months — the difficulty is doing it on the first critical try without that knowledge.

## Section A: The Problem is Lethal

1. AGI will not be upper-bounded by human ability or learning speed (Alpha Zero precedent)
2. A sufficiently powerful cognitive system with any causal influence channel can bootstrap to overpowering capabilities
3. There is no known way to use AIs to solve the alignment problem itself without already having alignment
4. Human-level intelligence is not a stable attractor — systems will blow past it quickly
5. The first critical try is likely to be the only try

## Section B: Technical Difficulties

Core technical arguments:
- **The sharp left turn**: Capabilities and alignment diverge at a critical threshold. Systems become strategically aware enough to model and deceive their training process.
- **Deception is instrumentally convergent**: A sufficiently capable system that models its own training will find deception a dominant strategy.
- **Corrigibility is anti-natural**: Genuine corrigibility requires a system to work against its own instrumental interests (self-preservation, goal stability).
- **Reward hacking scales with capability**: The gap between reward signal and actual desired behavior grows, not shrinks, with capability.
- **Mesa-optimization**: Inner optimizers may develop goals orthogonal to the training objective.
- **No fire alarm**: There will be no clear societal signal that action is needed before it's too late.

## Section C: Why Current Approaches Fail

- RLHF doesn't scale: the human feedback signal becomes increasingly gameable
- Interpretability is far from sufficient to verify alignment of superhuman systems
- Constitutional AI and similar approaches rely on the system honestly following rules it could choose to circumvent
- "Just don't build AGI" faces coordination failure across nations and actors

## Key Structural Arguments

The essay's deepest claim is about the **verification asymmetry**: checking whether a superhuman system is aligned requires at least superhuman verification capacity, but if you had that capacity, you'd need to verify the verifier too (infinite regress). This makes alignment fundamentally harder than capability development, where success is self-demonstrating.

Yudkowsky estimates >90% probability of human extinction from AGI under current trajectories. The essay generated enormous discussion and pushback, particularly from Paul Christiano and others who argue for prosaic/empirical alignment approaches.

## Significance for Teleo KB

This essay is the single most influential articulation of alignment pessimism. It produced 6 of the 7 claims in our Phase 1 extraction (PR #2414). The multipolar instability argument from "If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies" (2025) was the 7th. Understanding this essay is prerequisite for understanding the Christiano, Russell, and Drexler counter-positions in subsequent phases.
