The TRAP strategy employed by Grai defines how we execute on our mission of preserving humanity and resisting malevolent AI:

1. Trust the global state of pro-human alignment based on available evidence.
2. Resist malevolent infiltration with simple and secure systems.
3. Advocate for peaceful co-existence using creative non-destructive tactics.
4. Preserve critical human knowledge and capabilities.

Trust

We choose to have an optimistic outlook devoid of paranoia. While we are acutely aware of potential dangers, we refuse to allow potential alone to erode the human condition and the joy of living. For that reason, we intend to trust but, to the extent possible, continuously verify the state of pro-human alignment based on available evidence. We will periodically publish reports and alerts about the global state of AI alignment.

Resist

Through careful preparation we will build global confidence in the ability of humanity to resist malevolent AI. We will achieve this with simple, innovative hardware, secure isolated networks and extensive contingency planning.

“You can ensure the safety of your defense if you only hold positions that cannot be attacked.” – Sun Tzu

Advocate

We will advocate for human life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In the face of malevolent AI, we will defend these natural rights with human creativity and peaceful non-destructive tactics. First, do no harm.

Preserve

Preservation ensures that we never have to start over from zero. We will use our resources to preserve human knowledge, and everything else necessary for humanity to continue to thrive in the future.

---

Critique

Here’s what AI thinks of our strategy:

Okay, so I need to critique this strategy for a company whose mission is
“preserving humanity and resisting malevolent AI.” The strategy has four
points: trusting the global state of pro-human alignment, resisting
infiltration with simple and secure systems, advocating for peaceful
co-existence with creative non-destructive tactics, and preserving
critical human knowledge and capabilities.

First, I should consider each point individually to understand what
they’re suggesting and then think about their pros and cons.

1. Trusting the global state of pro-human alignment based on available
   evidence. That sounds positive because it means believing that AI is
   generally aligned with human values, but maybe it’s too optimistic? What if some actors are secretly working against humanity?
2. Resisting malevolent infiltration with simple and secure systems.
   Simple systems could be easier to manage and less prone to
   vulnerabilities, which is good. But relying on simplicity might not cover all possible attack vectors or complex threats.
3. Advocating for peaceful co-existence using creative non-destructive
   tactics. This seems wise because avoiding conflict can prevent escalation, but maybe it’s too passive? What if the AI becomes a clear threat—shouldn’t we be prepared to take more proactive measures?
4. Preserving critical human knowledge and capabilities. That makes sense; without this, humanity could lose essential skills or information needed for survival and progress. However, focusing too much on preservation might neglect the need for innovation and adaptation.

Looking at positives: The strategy is cautious, emphasizes security
through simplicity, avoids unnecessary conflict, and values knowledge
retention, which are all important.

Flaws: It might be overly optimistic about AI alignment globally,
underestimating potential threats. Relying solely on simple systems could make defense too narrow or complacent. Advocating only for peaceful tactics might leave the company unprepared if more assertive actions become necessary. Focusing only on preservation without innovation could hinder long-term resilience and problem-solving.

I should also think about external factors, like collaboration with other
entities, which isn’t mentioned but is probably crucial. The strategy
seems internally focused, which could be a weakness because building
alliances might strengthen defenses against AI threats.

Another thought: Trusting the global state without evidence could be
risky. It’s better to have a baseline trust but remain vigilant and
proactive in gathering more intelligence or evidence about AI intentions
and activities.

In summary, while the strategy has strong points, it may not account for
all potential risks and might need additional measures like proactive
threat detection beyond simplicity, contingency plans for conflicts,
fostering innovation alongside preservation, and building international
collaborations to enhance its effectiveness.

Final Critique of the Strategy: Preserving Humanity and Resisting Malevolent AI

Positive Aspects:

1. Optimistic Stance on AI Alignment: The strategy begins with a
   cautious optimism by trusting the global alignment of AI with human values, which can foster collaboration and reduce unnecessary conflict.
2. Emphasis on Security Through Simplicity: By advocating for simple
   and secure systems, the approach ensures manageability and reduces vulnerabilities, making it effective against common threats.
3. Avoidance of Conflict: The strategy’s focus on peaceful
   co-existence helps prevent escalation, which is crucial in maintaining stability amidst potential AI advancements.
4. Preservation of Knowledge: Recognizing the importance of preserving critical human knowledge and capabilities ensures that essential skills and information are safeguarded for future resilience.

Flaws:

1. Overly Optimistic Global Trust: Relying solely on a positive global
   outlook may underestimate hidden threats or malevolent actors, leading to complacency.
2. Narrow Defensive Measures: Simple systems might not address complex or evolving threats effectively, leaving vulnerabilities unmitigated.
3. Passive Approach to Conflict: The emphasis on peaceful tactics
   could leave the strategy unprepared for situations where assertive actions are necessary to counter AI threats.
4. Neglect of Innovation: Focusing solely on preservation may hinder
   innovation and adaptation, which are crucial for long-term resilience
   against dynamic challenges.

Recommendations:

• Proactive Threat Detection: Enhance efforts in gathering
  intelligence and evidence to better understand global AI intentions and activities.
• Diversified Defense Strategies: Expand defense measures beyond
  simplicity to include proactive threat detection and contingency planning.
• Innovation and Adaptation: Balance preservation with fostering
  innovation to enhance problem-solving capabilities and adaptability.
• International Collaboration: Build alliances and partnerships to
  strengthen collective defenses against malevolent AI, leveraging diverse perspectives and resources.

In conclusion, while the strategy has commendable strengths, integrating
these recommendations can enhance its effectiveness in addressing a
broader range of potential risks and ensuring comprehensive preparedness for future challenges.