Calls for stopping current development toward ASI to gain understanding and find a safe route; explicitly rejects stopping AI forever. Endorses a near-term global ASI ban; no fixed restart date. [1][2][3][4][5]
Clarification. Conditional halt supported by explicit personal rejection of an eternal AI ban, plus current named organizational endorsement; no explicit revision is claimed.
Source [1] · Original publisher interview transcript
Nate Soares rejects stopping AI forever, The Great Simplification #203
Attributed to: Nate Soares · The Great Simplification
Statement
“I'm more saying we need to stop, we need more time to figure out what we're doing”
Source context. Immediately after saying he is not advocating that humanity stop AI forever, Soares asks for a halt, time to understand intelligence, and a different route to safe beneficial technology.
Scope
Development toward superintelligence under current methods; not all narrow AI or an eternal prohibition on eventual safe technology.
Conditions
Stop to gain understanding and find another safe course to the beneficial outcome; explicitly rejects stopping AI forever. No fixed pause duration.
Stated rationale
Immediately after saying he is not advocating that humanity stop AI forever, Soares asks for a halt, time to understand intelligence, and a different route to safe beneficial technology.
Source details
primary · Publisher original recording/publication dates independently verified; original auto-generated transcript inspected with surrounding explicit forever rejection. Independent reviewer identified this stronger affirmative conditional-halt passage.
Discovered 4 Oct 2026.
Published 3 Dec 2025.
Accessed 4 Oct 2026.
Source [2] · Interview transcript
Nate Soares on The Great Simplification #203
Attributed to: Nate Soares · The Great Simplification
Statement
“…we're not gonna stop unilaterally, but we have interest in everyone being stopped here because this is dangerous.”
Source context. Personally asks politicians to signal willingness to stop if other countries stop and build monitoring; distinguishes this from unilateral shutdown and from abandoning technical safety understanding.
Scope
International halt on development toward superintelligence; not unilateral U.S. cessation.
Conditions
Global cooperation and monitoring; no fixed duration. Earlier same interview says alignment is not impossible but current technology is nowhere close.
Stated rationale
Personally asks politicians to signal willingness to stop if other countries stop and build monitoring; distinguishes this from unilateral shutdown and from abandoning technical safety understanding.
Source details
primary · Original episode page specifies recording Nov11 2025/publication Dec3 2025. Host also says Nov11 in transcript introduction. Original hosted transcript auto-generated/not fully proofread.
Discovered 4 Oct 2026.
Published 3 Dec 2025.
Accessed 4 Oct 2026.
Source [3] · Interview transcript
Nate Soares: alignment possible in principle, #203
Attributed to: Nate Soares · The Great Simplification
Source context. In response to whether alignment is impossible, explicitly says no; advanced science might eventually make it possible but current methods are far from it.
Scope
Eventual technical alignment; current inscrutable AI development.
In response to whether alignment is impossible, explicitly says no; advanced science might eventually make it possible but current methods are far from it.
Source details
primary · Independently opened original publisher; not Grok evidence.
Discovered 4 Oct 2026.
Published 3 Dec 2025.
Accessed 4 Oct 2026.
Source [4] · Jointly authored written statement
If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies: One Year Closer
Attributed to: Nate Soares · MIRI / Nate Soares and coauthors
Published
“All over the Earth, it must become illegal for AI companies to charge ahead in developing artificial intelligence as they’ve been doing.”
Source context. Book anniversary authors reaffirm legal halt, amid September2026 incidents. Nate named in both byline/signature; Eliezer byline/signature inconsistency requires clarification before attributing this additional edition to him.
Scope
AI companies escalating capabilities under present development methods, globally; future safe methods not addressed in this passage.
Conditions
Calls for a legal worldwide halt; no restart condition in this passage. Subsequent September23 jointly endorsed organizational statement conditions backing off on better alignment understanding.
Stated rationale
Book anniversary authors reaffirm legal halt, amid September2026 incidents. Nate named in both byline/signature; Eliezer byline/signature inconsistency requires clarification before attributing this additional edition to him.
Source details
primary · Independent original inspected. Do not erase byline/signature mismatch. Later September23 named endorsement remains independently established. Exact original written edition date September16. Byline names Eliezer Yudkowsky/Nate Soares/Duncan Sabien, but signature says Nate/Harlan/Duncan; preserve discrepancy.
Discovered 4 Oct 2026.
Published 16 Sep 2026.
Accessed 4 Oct 2026.
Source [5] · Written statement
MIRI’s Position on the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act of 2026
Attributed to: Nate Soares · MIRI / Aaron Scher
Published
“…the near term requires a complete, flat ASI ban.”
“What we like about the Act,” sixth bullet; read with opening endorsement and final paragraph · View original source ↗
Source context. Aaron Scher’s September 23 written statement explicitly names Soares and Yudkowsky among endorsers. It endorses an ASI ban and precursor/interim pauses, but says many staff want eventually demonstrably safe ASI and closes with an alignment-conditioned halt. Do not infer either named individual personally belongs to the “many staff” subset.
Scope
ASI and precursor capabilities including automated AI R&D; separate interim pause for other advanced AI; some licensed non-ASI medical tools may be excepted.
Conditions
Jointly endorsed on behalf of MIRI, not a sole-authored personal statement. Near-term flat ASI ban; back off until better alignment understanding; indefinite horizon, no present safe method or fixed restart date.
Stated rationale
Aaron Scher’s September 23 written statement explicitly names Soares and Yudkowsky among endorsers. It endorses an ASI ban and precursor/interim pauses, but says many staff want eventually demonstrably safe ASI and closes with an alignment-conditioned halt. Do not infer either named individual personally belongs to the “many staff” subset.
Source details
primary · Exact dated written edition independently verified. Individual signing time not specified; recorded as publication date, not an invented speech/signing day. Speaker field identifies named endorser; authorship and on-behalf-of relationship are explicit.
Discovered 4 Oct 2026.
Published 23 Sep 2026.
Accessed 4 Oct 2026.
Editorial assessment. Stricter boundary reading: suspend until stated control/alignment understanding, not an unconditional permanent end. Permanent-ban language and no-foreseeable-safety claims are preserved; latest named organizational endorsement is not sole-authored personal testimony. Later interviews with unknown event dates remain blocked private observations and cannot supply a manufactured dated assessment. Portrait absent; no public shell or approval.
Assessment reviewed
Earlier position ·
PAUSE
Aaron Scher’s September 23 written statement explicitly names Soares and Yudkowsky among endorsers. It endorses an ASI ban and precursor/interim pauses, but says many staff want eventually demonstrably safe ASI and closes with an alignment-conditioned halt. Do not infer either named individual personally belongs to the “many staff” subset. [1]
Scope distinction. Aaron Scher’s September 23 written statement explicitly names Soares and Yudkowsky among endorsers. It endorses an ASI ban and precursor/interim pauses, but says many staff want eventually demonstrably safe ASI and closes with an alignment-conditioned halt. Do not infer either named individual personally belongs to the “many staff” subset.
Source [1] · Written statement
MIRI’s Position on the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act of 2026
Attributed to: Nate Soares · MIRI / Aaron Scher
Published
“…the near term requires a complete, flat ASI ban.”
“What we like about the Act,” sixth bullet; read with opening endorsement and final paragraph · View original source ↗
Source context. Aaron Scher’s September 23 written statement explicitly names Soares and Yudkowsky among endorsers. It endorses an ASI ban and precursor/interim pauses, but says many staff want eventually demonstrably safe ASI and closes with an alignment-conditioned halt. Do not infer either named individual personally belongs to the “many staff” subset.
Scope
ASI and precursor capabilities including automated AI R&D; separate interim pause for other advanced AI; some licensed non-ASI medical tools may be excepted.
Conditions
Jointly endorsed on behalf of MIRI, not a sole-authored personal statement. Near-term flat ASI ban; back off until better alignment understanding; indefinite horizon, no present safe method or fixed restart date.
Stated rationale
Aaron Scher’s September 23 written statement explicitly names Soares and Yudkowsky among endorsers. It endorses an ASI ban and precursor/interim pauses, but says many staff want eventually demonstrably safe ASI and closes with an alignment-conditioned halt. Do not infer either named individual personally belongs to the “many staff” subset.
Source details
primary · Exact dated written edition independently verified. Individual signing time not specified; recorded as publication date, not an invented speech/signing day. Speaker field identifies named endorser; authorship and on-behalf-of relationship are explicit.
Discovered 4 Oct 2026.
Published 23 Sep 2026.
Accessed 4 Oct 2026.
Editorial assessment. Private researcher proposal; independent review and human approval still required. Scope/time limitations retained.
Assessment reviewed
Earlier position ·
PAUSE
Personally asks politicians to signal willingness to stop if other countries stop and build monitoring; distinguishes this from unilateral shutdown and from abandoning technical safety understanding. [1]
Initial statement. Personally asks politicians to signal willingness to stop if other countries stop and build monitoring; distinguishes this from unilateral shutdown and from abandoning technical safety understanding.
Source [1] · Interview transcript
Nate Soares on The Great Simplification #203
Attributed to: Nate Soares · The Great Simplification
Statement
“…we're not gonna stop unilaterally, but we have interest in everyone being stopped here because this is dangerous.”
Source context. Personally asks politicians to signal willingness to stop if other countries stop and build monitoring; distinguishes this from unilateral shutdown and from abandoning technical safety understanding.
Scope
International halt on development toward superintelligence; not unilateral U.S. cessation.
Conditions
Global cooperation and monitoring; no fixed duration. Earlier same interview says alignment is not impossible but current technology is nowhere close.
Stated rationale
Personally asks politicians to signal willingness to stop if other countries stop and build monitoring; distinguishes this from unilateral shutdown and from abandoning technical safety understanding.
Source details
primary · Original episode page specifies recording Nov11 2025/publication Dec3 2025. Host also says Nov11 in transcript introduction. Original hosted transcript auto-generated/not fully proofread.
Discovered 4 Oct 2026.
Published 3 Dec 2025.
Accessed 4 Oct 2026.
Editorial assessment. Private researcher proposal; independent review and human approval still required. Scope/time limitations retained.