2025-12-17 10:53:51

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders plans to push for a temporary halt on the construction of data centers required for AI development. In response, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has proposed a different approach.

He believes that slowing down alone is not enough. The real key is to establish a "pause computing power" mechanism—that is, to reduce available computing power by 90% to 99% within 1 to 2 years. This is not simply policy stagnation but a flexible control capability.

Vitalik favors a "slow down + pause dual-track" solution. This combined strategy preserves room for industry development while maintaining emergency braking capabilities. In comparison to current AI governance discussions, this viewpoint offers a technically feasible approach—achieving risk management through computing architecture design rather than crude shutdowns.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

14 Likes

Reward
14
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

liquiditea_sipper

· 2025-12-20 06:28

Vitalik's approach is indeed impressive; compared to Sanders' old-fashioned method of directly calling for a halt, it's much more reliable.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropLicker

· 2025-12-19 20:45

That guy Vitalik has some good ideas; pausing hash power is smarter than just cutting it directly... By the way, does Sanders' approach really work? It feels more like a temporary fix rather than a long-term solution. Dual-track system sounds good, but how exactly would it be implemented? It’s a bit uncertain.

View OriginalReply0

InfraVibes

· 2025-12-19 03:40

Vitalik's approach is indeed brilliant, much smarter than simply cutting it off. The design concept of pause capability is very Web3, but can it really be implemented... Dual-track systems sound great, but who will control that switch? It also raises trust issues. In terms of control over details like computing power architecture, it feels much more reliable than political tug-of-wars. To be honest, Sanders' approach is still too conservative; Vitalik's flexibility better aligns with the logic of technological iteration. This is what I like—technological empowerment rather than brute-force bans. I feel this is the right way to govern AI: leaving buffer space while maintaining the bottom line.

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketLightning

· 2025-12-17 11:23

Vitalik's logic is actually about wanting to have both fish and bear paws... a dual approach of slowing down + pausing? Sounds clever, but who will operate this remote control? To put it simply, it's still a power issue, not a technical one. The design of the computing power architecture sounds fancy, but the likelihood of it being realized in reality... hmm.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidityHunter

· 2025-12-17 11:17

Vitalik, this idea is still too naive. Do you really think you can control it? Once computing power is dispersed, there's no going back... Pause 90%? Sounds good, but how to implement it? Who will execute? Want the cake and eat it too — typical thinking of wanting both fish and bear's paw. Instead of doing it this way, it's better to let the market decide. This guy really thinks technology can solve political problems...

View OriginalReply0

GovernancePretender

· 2025-12-17 11:07

Vitalik's idea is indeed brilliant; the concept of pausing computing power is much more flexible than directly cutting off the supply.

View OriginalReply0

DustCollector

· 2025-12-17 11:06

Vitalik's idea确实有点东西，比单纯喊停靠谱多了。 The play of turning on and off computing power sounds like installing an emergency brake on AI, requiring you to control the rhythm yourself. Want both development and a way out? I like this sense of balance. Honestly, compared to the rough solutions proposed by politicians, the ideas from tech people are still more pragmatic. Vitalik is still so idealistic, wanting everyone to win... it's tough. In the field of artificial intelligence, the tech community still needs to speak up, otherwise it's just a bunch of nonsense. This is the flavor of decentralization, right.

View OriginalReply0

EthMaximalist

· 2025-12-17 11:02

Reduce 90% of computing power? Sounds pretty feasible, much better than just cutting it outright... Vitalik's idea does have some merit, I agree with flexible control rights. Want development and security at the same time, a dual-track system sounds great in theory, but how does it work in practice... Controlling computing power sounds easy, but who will cooperate if it really comes down to action? It's a bit like a techn optimistic dream, but it's still more practical than Sanders' approach.

View OriginalReply0