Capability Acceleration, Civilizational Viability, and Power Architecture: A Three-Axis Model for AI-Driven Civilizational Transition

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract This paper compares two independent frameworks for AI-driven civilizational transition: Leopold Aschenbrenner’s Situational Awareness (2024) and Raynor Eissens’ Ambient Era Canon (2026). Situational Awareness models a rapid capability trajectory in which scaling, automated AI research, scientific acceleration, robotics, economic output, and military advantage form a widening chain of positive feedback. The Ambient Era Canon instead centers the conditions under which human and institutional systems remain viable as intelligence becomes infrastructural: reversible stress, attention preservation, autonomy, environmental carrying capacity, civilizational coordination, and closure as the disappearance of unresolved structural pressure. An initial two-axis comparison, capability acceleration versus civilizational viability, is useful but incomplete. Re-examination of the Ambient corpus reveals an explicit power and geopolitical layer: the historical sequence from monetary power to platform power to environmental power, the treatment of attention as a geopolitical resource, and Ambient Power as a low-pressure alternative to coercive or extractive power. This motivates a third analytical axis: Power Architecture. The resulting model distinguishes three questions that are often collapsed into one: how fast intelligence scales, whether civilization can absorb that scaling without accumulating destructive pressure, and what form of power becomes dominant as intelligence diffuses through infrastructure. The framework does not claim that either source corpus is empirically established as a complete theory. It is offered as a comparative research architecture that separates capability, viability, and power, identifies points of conflict and compatibility, and proposes operational hypotheses for future work.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.