Extreme power concentration: A problem profile article written by Rose Hadshar, first published in April 2025 and updated in December 2025. Introduction: Power is already concentrated today. Over 800 million people live on less than $3 a day. The three richest men in the world are worth over $1 trillion. And almost 6 billion people live in countries without free and fair elections. This is a problem in its own right. There is still substantial distribution of power, though. Global income inequality is falling. Over 2 billion people live in electoral democracies. No country earns more than a quarter of GDP and no company earns as much as 1%. But in the future, advanced AI could enable much more extreme power concentration than we've seen so far. Many believe that within the next decade the leading AI projects will be able to run millions of superintelligent AI systems thinking many times faster than humans. These systems could displace human workers, leading to much less economic and political power for the vast majority of people. And unless we take action to prevent it, they may end up being controlled by a tiny number of people with no effective oversight. Once these systems are deployed across the economy, government, and the military, whatever goals they're built to have will become the primary force shaping the future. If those goals are chosen by the few, then a small number of people could end up with the power to make all of the important decisions about the future. Similarly, power could also get concentrated with AI systems through AI takeover or gradual disempowerment. But here we're focusing just on scenarios where power becomes concentrated to a small group of humans. Summary: We think this is among the most pressing problems in the world, despite high uncertainty around the scope of the issue and potential solutions. The scale of the problem potentially seems very large. Some of the mechanisms driving the risk of AI-enabled power concentration seem decently likely, like AI replacing human workers and positive feedback loops in AI development giving some actors a big lead in capabilities. Our top-rated problem is power-seeking AI takeover. Some of the same dynamics that could allow for misaligned AI systems to seize power could also allow humans controlling AI systems to do so as well -- and with the same emergent dynamics which could lead to the gradual disempowerment of all humans, could also lead to the disempowerment of most humans, leaving the remaining few in positions of extremely concentrated power. AI-enabled power concentration would mean the political disempowerment of almost all humans. For the vast majority of people, this would mean having no meaningful say in decisions that shape their lives and futures. Without checks and balances, those in power could make extremely harmful choices. And history shows us that unchecked power can lead to tyranny and atrocities. What's even more concerning is that AI-enabled power concentration would likely be self reinforcing. Those in power will probably seek to entrench themselves further and could use their AI advantage to secure their regime. So any harms could be very long lasting. There are lots of people working on power concentration generally in governments, the legal system, academia, and civil society. But very few are focused on the risk of AI enabled power Concentration driven by AI specifically. We're aware of a few dozen people at a handful of organisations who are working on this risk and even fewer who are working on this full time. Preventing AI enabled power concentration is so neglected that it's hard to tell yet how tractable it is. We don't yet know what works because so few people have tried anything. However, there are several reasons to be optimistic here. It's in almost everyone's interests to prevent AI-enabled power concentration, including the interests of most powerful people today who might otherwise lose out to their rivals. Even though thinking on this problem is at quite an early stage, there are already some concrete interventions that seem promising. For example, technical mitigations which prevent people training AI to advance their own interests, like alignment audits and internal infosecurity, seem quite tractable. On the other hand, the structural forces pushing towards power concentration, such as AI replacing human workers and feedback loops leading to large capabilities gaps, might be very strong and difficult to change. Even though it's in most people's interest to prevent AI-enabled power concentration, their ability to understand what's happening and act in their own interests might be eroded. If AI progress is very fast, competitive dynamics degrade the epistemic environment or power-seeking individuals take adversarial actions to deliberately obfuscate what's happening. Power-seeking people in positions of authority might also be able to simply remove mitigations that others have put in place to limit power concentration as soon as those mitigations become inconvenient. The bottom line is it's not clear how easy it is to solve the problem of AI enabled power concentration. But it's not clearly impossible to solve. There are already some tractable things to do and it's an important and neglected enough problem that much more effort seems warranted. In fact, our current view is that it's among the most pressing issues in the world. Because it's so early days and badly executed plans could backfire, we think that at the moment most people should be bearing the risk in mind rather than working on it directly. But if you are well placed to work on this problem, it's likely to be your best option. Section 1: Why might AI-enabled power concentration be a pressing problem? There are four main reasons we think AI enabled power concentration is an especially pressing problem. First, historically unprecedented levels of automation could concentrate the power to get stuff done by reducing the value of human labour, empowering small groups with big AI workforces, and potentially giving one AI developer a huge capabilities advantage, in the event that automating AI development leads to runaway AI progress. Second, this could lead to unprecedented concentration of political power. A small number of people could use a huge AI workforce to seize power over existing institutions or render them obsolete by amassing enormous wealth. Third, AI-enabled power concentration could cause enormous and lasting harm by disempowering most people politically and enabling large-scale abuses of power. And fourth, there are ways to reduce this risk, but very few are working on them. In this section, we'll go through each of these points in turn. But first we'll give an illustrative scenario where power becomes extremely concentrated because of advanced AI. The scenario is very stylized and there are loads of other ways things could go, but it gives a more concrete sense of the kind of thing we're worried about. Note that this scenario and the companies and institutions in it are made up. We're trying to illustrate a hypothetical and don't have particular real-world actors in mind. So here we go. In 2029, a US AI company called Apex AI achieves a critical breakthrough. Their AI can now conduct AI research as well as human scientists can. This leads to an intelligence explosion where AI improving AI improving AI leads to very rapid capability gains. But their competitors, including in China, are close on their heels and begin their own intelligence explosions within months. Fearing that China will soon be in a position to leverage its industrial base to overtake the US, the US government creates Project Fortress, consolidating all US AI development under a classified oversight council of government officials and lab executives. Apex leverages their early lead to secure three of nine board seats and provides the Council's core infrastructure, security systems, data analytics and AI advisors. By 2032, AI companies generate the majority of federal tax revenue as AI systems automate traditional jobs. Unemployment rises. The oversight council now directs hundreds of millions of AI workers, controls most of the tax base, and makes the most important decisions about military AI procurement, infrastructure investment, and income redistribution. Only those with direct connections to the council or major AI companies have access to the most advanced AI tools, while most citizens interact with the limited consumer versions. When the president proposes blocking Apex's merger with Paradox AI, which would create a combined entity controlling 60% of compute used to train and run US AI systems, council-generated economic models warn of China overtaking and economic collapse if the move is carried out. That proposal dies very quickly. The Council's AI systems, all running on Apex architecture, are subtly furthering Apex's interests. But the technical traces are too subtle for less advanced models to detect. Besides, most people are bought into beating China. And when they ask their personal AI advisors, usually less advanced versions of either Paradox or Apex models, about the merger, the models argue persuasively that it serves the national interest. By 2035, the US economy has tripled, while other nations have stagnated. Project Fortress's decisions now shape global markets: which technologies get developed, which resources get allocated, which countries receive AI assistance. Apex and Paradox executives gradually cement their influence. Their AI systems draft most proposals, their models evaluate the options, their security protocols determine what information reaches other Council members. With all major information channels, from AI advisors to news analysis to government briefings, filtered through the systems they control, it becomes nearly impossible for anyone to get an unbiased picture of the concentration of power taking place. Everything people read on social media or hear on the news seems to support the idea that there's nothing much to worry about. The executives are powerful enough to unilaterally seize control of the Council and dictate terms to other nations. But they don't need to. Through thousands of subtle nudges -- a risk assessment here, a strategic recommendation there -- the AI systems ensure every major decision aligns with their vision for humanity's future. Now that we've painted that picture, let's move on to the four main reasons we think AI enabled power concentration is an especially pressing problem. First, automation could concentrate the power to get stuff done. We've always used technology to automate bits of human labour. Water power mills replaced hand milling, the printing press replaced scribes, and the spinning jenny replaced hand spinning. This automation has had impacts on the distribution of power, and some of them significant. The printing press helped shift power from the church towards city merchants. And factory machines shifted power from landowners to capitalists and towards industrialising countries. The thing that's different with AI is that it has the potential to automate many kinds of labour at once. Top AI researchers think that there's a 50% chance that AI can automate all human tasks by 2047. Though many people think this could happen much sooner -- several AI company CEOs expect AGI in the next few years, but also it could happen much later. Even if full human automation takes a long time or never happens, it's clear that AI could automate a large fraction of human labour. And given how fast capabilities are currently progressing, this might start happening soon. This could have big implications for how power is distributed. By default, less money will go to workers and more money will go to the owners of capital. Automation could reduce the value of people's labour, in extreme scenarios, causing wages to collapse to very low levels indefinitely. This would increase how much of the power goes to capital compared to labour, and those with capital would become even more disproportionately powerful than they are now. Also, small groups will be able to do more. Right now, large undertakings require big human workforces. At its peak, the Manhattan Project employed 130,000 people. It takes 1.5 million people just to run Amazon. As AI becomes more capable, it'll become possible to get big stuff done without large human teams and the attendant need to convince them that what you're doing is good, or at least okay, by using AI workforces instead. This would already empower small groups to do more. But the effect will be even stronger because using AI to get stuff done won't empower everyone equally. It'll especially empower those with access to the best AI systems. Companies already deploy some models without releasing them to the public. And if capabilities get more dangerous or the market becomes less competitive, access to the very best capabilities could become very limited indeed. Runaway progress from automated AI development could give one developer a big capabilities advantage. The first project to automate AI R&D might trigger an intelligence explosion where AI systems improving AI systems which improve AI systems leads to a positive feedback loop, meaning their AI capabilities can rapidly pull ahead of everyone else's. Competitors might follow on with intelligence explosions of their own, but if they're far enough behind the leader to begin with, or the leader's initial boost in capabilities is sufficiently huge, one company might be able to entrench a lasting advantage. If these dynamics are strong enough, we could end up with most of the power to earn money and get stuff done in the hands of the few organisations which have access to the best AI systems, and hence to huge amounts of intelligent labour which they can use for any means. These organisations could either be AI companies themselves or governments. Furthermore, within these organisations, more and more employees may get replaced by AI systems such that a very small number of people wield huge amounts of power. There are many other ways this could go, and it's not a foregone conclusion that AI will lead to this kind of power concentration. Perhaps we'll see a stronger shift from expensive pre-training to more accessible inference scaling, and there will be a boom in the number of frontier companies putting equally powerful AI in more hands. There might be no intelligence explosion or it might fizzle quickly, allowing laggards to catch up. If commercial competition remains high, consumers will have access to smarter and smarter models which could even out differences in capabilities between humans and push to greater egalitarianism. AI might allow for much more direct democracy by making it easier to aggregate preferences and for greater transparency and so on. We'll address more of this later. So there are forces pushing against power concentration as well as forces pushing towards it. It's certainly possible that society naturally adjusts to these changes and successfully defends against AI enabled power concentration. But given the speed that AI progress might reach, there's a real risk that we don't have enough time to adapt. Our second reason: This could lead to unprecedented concentration of political power. So we could end up in a situation where most of the power to earn money and get stuff done is in the hands of the few. This power might be kept appropriately limited by existing institutions and laws, such that influence over important decisions about the future remains distributed. But it's not hard to imagine that huge capabilities advantages for some actors and the erosion of the value of most human labour could undermine our current checks and balances which were designed for much more even levels of capabilities in a world which runs on human labour. But how would this actually happen? People who are powerful today will fight tooth and nail to retain their power. And just having really good AI doesn't automatically put you in charge of key institutions. We think that power could become extremely concentrated through some combination of: 1. AI enabled power grabs where actors use AI to seize control over existing institutions. 2. economic forces which might make some actors so wealthy that they can easily influence or bypass existing institutions. And 3, epistemic interference where most people's ability to understand what's happening and coordinate in their own interests gets eroded. The experts we've talked to disagree about which of these dynamics is most important. While it might be possible for just one of these dynamics to lead all the way to AI enabled power concentration, we're especially worried about the dynamics in combination as they could be mutually reinforcing. For example, power grabs over leading companies or governments would make it easier to amass wealth and control information flows. The more wealth that becomes concentrated, the easier it becomes for the richest to gain political influence and set themselves up for a power grab. The more people's ability to understand and coordinate in their own interests is compromised, the easier it becomes for powerful actors to amass wealth and grab power over institutions. Next, we'll go into more detail on how each of these factors -- power grabs, economic forces and epistemic interference -- could lead to AI enabled power concentration, where a small number of people make all of the important decisions about the future. Let's begin with AI enabled power grabs. There are already contexts today where actors can use money, force or other advantages to seize control over institutions, as demonstrated by periodic military coups and corporate takeovers worldwide. That said, there are also limits to this. Democracies sometimes backslide all the way to dictatorship. But it's rare and there are almost never coups in mature democracies. Advanced AI could make power grabs possible, even over very powerful and democratic institutions, by putting huge AI workforces in the hands of the few. This would fundamentally change the dynamics of power grabs. Instead of needing large numbers of people to support and help orchestrate a power grab, it could become possible for a small group to seize power over a government or other powerful institution without any human assistance, using just AI workforces. But what would this actually look like? One pathway to an AI enabled power grab over an entire government is an automated military coup, where an actor uses control over military AI systems to seize power over a country. There are several different ways an actor could end up with control over enough military AI systems to stage a coup, such as: 1. A flawed command structure. Military AI systems might be explicitly trained to be loyal to a head of state or government official, instead of to the rule of law. If systems were trained in this way, then the official who controlled them could use them however they wanted to, including to stage a coup or to backslide all the way to dictatorship. 2. AI systems might have secret loyalties. As AI capabilities advance, it may become possible to make AI systems secretly loyal to a person or a small group. Like human spies, these systems would appear to behave as intended, but secretly further other ends. Especially if one company has much more sophisticated AI than everyone else and only a few actors have access to it, these secret loyalties might be very hard for external people to detect. So subsequent generations of AIs deployed in the government and the military might also be secretly loyal and could be used to stage a coup either by AI company leaders or foreign adversaries, or by parts of the government or military. 3. We must consider hacking. If one company or country has a strong advantage in cyber offence, they could hack into many military AI systems at once and either disable them or use them to actively stage a coup. Now, these scenarios may sound far fetched. Militaries will hopefully be cautious about deploying autonomous military systems and require appropriate safeguards to prevent these kinds of misuse. But competition or great power conflict might drive rushed deployment. And secret loyalties could be hard to detect even with rigorous testing. And it might only take a small force to successfully stage a coup, especially if they have AIs help them. There are several historical examples of a few battalions successfully seizing power even without a technological advantage, by persuading other forces not to intervene. Outside military coups, another potential route to an AI enabled power grab is overwhelming cognitive advantage, where an actor has such an advantage in skilled AI labour that it can directly overpower a country or even the rest of the world. With a very large cognitive advantage, it might be possible to seize power by using superhuman strategy and persuasion to convince others to cede power, or by building up a secret military force. This is even more sci-fi, but some people think it could happen if there's a big enough intelligence explosion. An AI enabled power grab, whether via an automated military coup or via overwhelming cognitive advantage, wouldn't automatically constitute AI enabled power concentration as we've defined it. There's no single institution today which makes all of the important decisions, not even the most powerful government in the world. So there might still be a long path between the successful power grab over one institution and making all of the important decisions about what happens in the future. But a power grab could be a very important incremental step on the way to a small number of people ending up with the power to make all of the important decisions about the future. Or, if power had already become very concentrated, a power grab could be the final step. Next, we move to economic forces. There are several different ways that a small group could become wealthy enough to effectively concentrate power, in extreme cases, making existing institutions irrelevant. The first: eroding the incentives for governments to represent their people by making the electorate economically irrelevant. Of course, the mission of governments and democracies is to represent and serve the interests of their citizens. But currently governments also have a direct economic incentive to do so. Happier and healthy people make more productive workers and pay more taxes. Plus they're less likely to rebel. If this link were broken by automation and AI companies provided the vast majority of government revenues, governments would no longer have this self-interested reason to promote the interests of their people. Second, there might still be elections in democracies, but the very fast rates of progress could make the election cycles so slow that they don't have much influence, and misinformation and lobbying could further distort voting. In scenarios like this, there might still be governments, but they'd no longer serve the functions that they currently do, and instead would mostly cater to the interests of huge AI companies. Third, outgrowing the world, where a company or a country becomes richer than the rest of the world combined. An intelligence explosion of the kind discussed above could grant the leading AI developer a monopoly on AI, even if temporary, which could allow them to make trillions of dollars a year and design and build powerful new technologies. Naively, if that actor could maintain its monopoly and grow at a faster rate than the rest of the world for long enough, it would end up with more than 99% of resources. There are lots of complications here which make outgrowing the world less likely, but it still seems possible that an actor could do this with a very concerted and well coordinated effort if they have privileged access to the most powerful technology in the world. Today's institutions might continue to exist, but it's not clear that they would be able to enact important decisions that the company or country you didn't like. Fourth, first mover advantages in outer space, where the leader in AI leverages their advantage to claim control over space resources. If AI enables rapid technological progress, the leader in AI might be the first actor to develop advanced space capabilities. They could potentially claim vast resources beyond Earth, and if space resources turn out to be defensible, they could maintain control indefinitely. It's not clear that such first mover advantages actually exist, but if they do, the first mover in space would be able to make unilateral decisions about humanity's expansion into the universe. Decisions that could matter enormously for our long term future. All of these routes are quite speculative, but if we don't take steps to prevent them, it does seem plausible that economic forces could lead to one country or company having much more political power than everyone else combined. If that actor were very centralised already, like an autocratic government or a company where most employees had been automated, or if there were later a power grab that consolidated power in the hands of a small group, this could lead to all important decisions about the future being made by a handful of individuals. And lastly, epistemic interference. Power grabs and economic forces that undermine existing institutions would be bad for most people. So it would be in their interests to coordinate and stop these dynamics. But the flip side of this is that it's in the interests of those trying to amass power to interfere with people's ability to understand what's happening and coordinate to stop further power concentration. This is the least well studied of the three dynamics we've pointed to, but we think it could be very important. Tentatively, here are a few different factors that could erode the epistemic environment, some of which involve deliberate interference and some of which are emergent dynamics which favour the few. First, lack of transparency. Powerful actors in AI companies and governments will have incentives to obfuscate their activities, particularly if they are seeking power for themselves. It might also prove technically difficult to share information on AI capabilities and how they're being used without leaking sensitive information. The more AI development is happening in secret, the harder it is for most people to oppose steps that would lead to further power concentration. Second, speed of AI progress. Things might be shifting so quickly that it's hard for any humans to keep up. This would advantage people who have access to the best AI systems and the largest amounts of compute. They might be the only ones who are able to leverage AI and understand the situation and act to promote their own interests. Third, biased AI advisors. As AI advice improves and the pace of change accelerates, people may become more and more dependent on AI systems for making sense of the world. But these systems might give advice which is subtly biassed in favour of the companies that built them, either because they've been deliberately trained to or because no one thought carefully about how the system's training environments could skew them in this direction. If AI systems end up favouring companies' interests, this could systematically bias people's beliefs and actions towards things which help with further power concentration. And four, persuasion and manipulation campaigns. Those with access to superior AI capabilities in compute could deliberately interfere with other people's ability to limit their power by conducting AI powered lobbying campaigns or manipulating individual decision makers. For example, AI could make unprecedentedly intensive and personalised efforts to influence each individual congressperson to gain their support on some policy issue, including offers of money and superhuman AI assistance for their reelection campaigns. It's not yet clear how powerful these techniques will be. Humans might have epistemic defences that are already quite good and AI won't advance much on what humans can already do. But if we're unlucky, this could severely impair society's ability to notice and respond to power-seeking. Now, that list of factors might be missing important things and including things that are not really going to be problems. Again, the area is understudied. But we're including it to give a more concrete sense of how AI might erode or be used to erode the epistemic environment, making it harder for people to realise what's happening and resist further power concentration. Epistemic interference in isolation probably won't lead to extreme AI enabled power concentration, but it could be a contributing factor. Our third reason: AI enabled Concentration could cause enormous and lasting harm. In a common sense way, handing the keys of the future to a handful of people seems clearly wrong, and it's something that most people would be strongly opposed to. We put a fair bit of weight on this intuitive case. We also put some weight on specific arguments for ways in which AI enabled power concentration would be extremely harmful, though the reasoning here feels a bit more brittle. First, it could lead to tyranny. Democracy usually stops small groups of extremists from taking the reins of government and using them to commit mass atrocities against their peoples by requiring that a large chunk of the population supports the general direction of the government. If power became extremely concentrated, a small group of people could commit atrocities that most people would be appalled by. Many of the worst atrocities in human history were perpetuated by a small number of people who had unchecked power over their people. Think of the Khmer Rouge murdering a quarter of all Cambodians between 1975 and 1979. But we can think of two main ways that AI enabled power concentration could lead to tyranny. Firstly, malevolent or just extremely selfish humans could end up in power. Particularly for scenarios where power gets concentrated through AI enabled power grabs, it seems quite likely that the sorts of humans who are willing to seize power will have other bad traits. They might actively want to cause harm. And secondly, power corrupts. Even if those in power started out with good intentions, they'd have no incentive to continue to promote the interests of most people if their power were secure. Whenever other people's interests became inconvenient, there would be a strong temptation to backtrack and no repercussions for doing so. Next, it could lead us to miss out on really good futures. AI enabled power concentration might not lead to tyranny in the most egregious sense. We might somehow end up with a benevolent dictator or an enlightened caste of powerful actors who keep an eye out for the rest of us. But even in this case, the future might be much less good than it could have been because there'd be the following traits. First, injustice and disempowerment. AI enabled power concentration would disempower the vast majority of people politically. From some philosophical perspectives, justice and political empowerment are intrinsically valuable, so this would make the future much less good. 2. Less diversity of values and way of life. A narrower set of people in power means a narrower set of values and preferences that get represented into the future. Again, from many perspectives, this kind of diversity is intrinsically valuable. Third, there might be less moral reflection. Making good decisions about the future might require thinking deeply about what we value and what we owe to others. If power over the future is distributed, there's a good chance that at least some people choose to reflect in this way. And there will be more disagreement and experimentation which could prompt others to reflect too. But if power is extremely concentrated, those in charge might simply impose their current worldview without ever questioning it. This could lead to irreversible mistakes. Imagine if the Victorians’ or the Romans’ moral blind spots had become permanent policy. If those in power happen to care about figuring out what's right, power concentration could also lead to more moral reflection than would happen in a default world. But it would be limited to a narrow set of experiences and perspectives and might miss important insights that emerge from a broader human dialogue. Extreme AI enabled power concentration would also probably be hard to reverse, making any harms very long lasting. As is already the case, the powerful will try to hold onto their power. But AI could make it possible to do this in an extremely long lasting way that hasn't been possible historically. Even if most people opposed an AI powered regime, they might have even less power than historically disenfranchised groups have had to overturn it. If all economic and military activity is automated, humans won't have valuable labour to withhold or compelling force to exert. So strikes and uprisings won't have any bite. Human dictators die, but a government run by AI systems could potentially preserve the values of a dictator or other human leader permanently into the future. And if power becomes so concentrated that there's just one global hegemon, then there won't be any external threats to the regime. These harms need to be weighed against the potential benefits from AI enabled power concentration, like reducing competitive dynamics. We're not certain about how all of this will go down, but both our intuition and the analysis above suggest that AI-enabled power concentration poses serious risks to human flourishing that we should work to avoid. Our fourth and final reason: There are ways to reduce this risk, but very few are working on them. Many people are working to prevent more moderate forms of power concentration. Considered broadly, a lot of the work that happens in governments, the legal system and many parts of academia and civil society contributes to this. But very few are focused on the risk of extreme power concentration driven by AI, even though if the above arguments are right, this is a very serious risk. We're aware of a few dozen people at a handful of organisations who are working on this risk and even fewer who work on this full time. As of September 2025, the only public grantmaking round we know of on AI enabled power concentration is a $4 million grant programme, though there is more funding available privately. This is in spite of the fact that there are concrete things we could do now to reduce the risk. For example, we could work on technical solutions to prevent people misusing massive AI workforces, such as training AI to follow the law; red teaming model specs, which are the documents that AI systems are trained to follow which specify how they're supposed to behave, to make sure AIs are trained not to help with power grabs; auditing models to check for secret loyalties; and increasing lab infosecurity to prevent tampering with the development process and unauthorised access which would make it harder to insert secret loyalties or misuse AI systems. We could develop and advocate for policies which distribute power over AI, such as designing the terms of contracts between labs and governments to make sure that no one actor has too much influence; sharing access to the best AI capabilities widely whenever this is safe and with multiple trusted actors like Congress and auditors when it isn't so that no actor has much more powerful capabilities than anyone else; building data centres in non-US democracies to distribute the power to run AI systems amongst more actors; mandating transparency into AI capabilities, how they're being used, model specs, safeguards, and risk assessments so it's easier to spot concerning behaviour; introducing more robust whistleblower protections to make it harder for insiders to conspire or for company executives to suppress the concerns of their workforces; and all of the previously mentioned technical solutions. And then we could build and deploy AI tools that improve people's ability to reason and coordinate so that they can resist epistemic interference. To be clear, thinking about how to prevent AI enabled power concentration is still at a very early stage. Not everyone currently working on this would support all of the interventions in that list and it's not clear how much of the problem would be solved even if we implemented that entire list. It might be that the structural forces pushing towards AI enabled power concentration are too strong to stop. But it certainly doesn't seem inevitable that power will become extremely concentrated. For instance, it's in almost everyone's interests to prevent AI enabled power concentration, including the interests of most powerful people today, since they have a lot to lose if they get outcompeted. And it's promising that we can already list some concrete, plausibly achievable interventions, even though the thinking about how to solve this problem is at such an early stage. There's a lot more work to be done here than there are people working on it. Section 2: What are the top arguments against working on this problem? We've touched on these arguments in other places in this article, but we brought them all together here, so it's easier to see what the weakest points are in the arguments for prioritising AI enabled concentration of power and go into a bit more depth. AI enabled power concentration could reduce other risks from AI. Some forms of power concentration could reduce various other risks from AI. If there were no competition in AI development, the sole AI developer wouldn't have the competitive pressures to skimp on AI safety, which might reduce the risk of an AI takeover. These competitive pressures are a major reason to worry that AI companies will race ahead without taking adequate AI safety precautions. The risk of great power war would fall away if power became entirely concentrated in one country. The risk of catastrophic misuse of bioweapons and other dangerous technologies would be much lower if only one actor had access to dangerous capabilities. The fact that AI could democratise access to extremely dangerous technology like bioweapons is one of the major reasons for concern about misuse. That said, there are other ways to manage those risks. It's not the case that either we have a benevolent dictatorship or we suffer existential catastrophe from other AI risks. Some combination of domestic regulation, internal coordination, technical progress on alignment and control and AI tools for epistemic security could allow us to navigate all of these risks. The prospect of AI enabled power concentration could also exacerbate other risks from AI. It's one thing to imagine a world where power is already extremely concentrated, but the process of getting to that world might drastically increase the stakes of competition and make powerful actors more willing to make risky bets and take adversarial actions to avoid losing out. Many interventions to reduce AI enabled power concentration also help reduce other risks. There isn't always a tradeoff in practice. For example, alignment audits help reduce the risk of both power concentration and AI takeover by making it harder for both humans and AIs to tamper with AI systems’ objectives. And sharing capabilities more widely could reduce power differentials and allow society to deploy AI defences. If we can safeguard AI models sufficiently, this needn't increase risks from catastrophic misuse. Weighing up these risks is complicated and we are not claiming that there aren't tradeoffs here. We currently think it isn't clear whether the effects of AI enabled power concentration net out as helpful or harmful for other risks. Given that power concentration is an important and neglected problem in its own right, we think it's still very worth working on. But we could encourage people working on AI enabled concentration of power to keep in mind that their actions might influence these other issues and try to avoid making them worse. The future might still be alright even if there is AI enabled power concentration. For the reasons we went into before, we think extremely concentrated power is likely to be bad. But even if you agree, there are some reasons to think that a future with AI enabled power concentration could still turn out all right on some metrics, such as material abundance. AI might generate such enormous wealth that people live in material conditions that are far better than those of the very richest today. In a world with AI enabled power concentration, people would be politically disempowered, but if the powerful chose to allow it, they could still be materially well off. We might also have reduced incentives for repression and brutality. Part of why autocracies repress their peoples is that their leaders are trying to shore up their own power. If power became so concentrated that leaders were guaranteed to remain in power forever, there'd no longer be rational incentives to do things like restrict freedom of speech or torture dissidents. But of course there'd still be irrational reasons to do that, like spites or fanatical ideologies. We might also benefit from selection effects. While it's not likely, it's possible that the people who end up in power would genuinely want to improve the world. Maybe getting into such a powerful position selects for people who are unusually competent, and maybe they assumed power reluctantly because people were racing to develop unsafe AI and power concentration seemed like the lesser of two evils. Again, we don't find these arguments particularly compelling, but believe they're plausible enough to be worth considering and weighing. Efforts to reduce AI enabled power concentration could backfire. AI enabled power concentration is a spicy topic, and efforts to prevent it could easily backfire. The more salient the risk of AI enabled power concentration is, the more salient it is to power seeking actors. Working to reduce AI enabled power concentration could galvanise opposition to interventions by those who stand to gain from power concentration; directly give power seeking actors ideas by generating and publicising information on how small groups could end up with large amounts of power; trigger a scramble for power -- if everyone thinks that everyone else is trying to consolidate their power, they might be more likely to seize power for themselves to preempt this. Some interventions might also reduce the probability that one actor ends up with too much power, but by increasing the probability that another actor does. For example, increasing government oversight over AI companies might make company power grabs harder, but simultaneously make it easier for government officials to orchestrate a power grab. We do think that preventing AI enabled power concentration is a bit of a minefield, and that's part of why we think that for now most people should bearing the risk in mind rather than working on it directly. But there are ways of making this work less likely to backfire, such as: Being thoughtful and aware of backfire risks. If you don't think that you have good judgement for this sort of thing, or you wouldn't have anyone with good judgement to give you feedback, it's probably best to work on something else. Using frames and language that are less adversarial. For example, power grabs seems spicier than power concentration as a framing. Focusing on kinds of work that are hard for power seeking actors to misuse. For example, developing and implementing mitigations like transparency measures or alignment audits is harder for a power seeking actor to make use of than detailed threat modelling. Power might remain distributed by default. So far we've argued that power could become extremely concentrated, but this isn't inevitable and the arguments may turn out to be wrong. For example, AI capabilities might just not get that powerful. Maybe the ceiling on important capabilities like persuasion or AI R&D is quite low, so the effects of AI are less transformative across the board. A particularly important variant of this is that maybe self-reinforcing dynamics from automating AI R&D will be weak, in which case there might be no intelligence explosion or only a very small one. This would mean that no single AI developer would be able to get and maintain a big capabilities lead over other developers. Also, the default regulatory response and the institutional setup in places like the United States might be enough to redistribute gains from automation and prevent misuse of big AI workforces. People with power today, which in democracies includes the electorate, civil society, and the media, will try very hard to maintain their own power against newcomers if they're able to tell what's going on, and most people stand to lose from AI enabled power concentration. And finally, if people are worried that AI is misaligned, meaning that it doesn't reliably pursue the goals that its users or makers want it to, this could both reduce the economic impacts of AI because there would be less deployment and make power seeking individuals less willing to use AI to attempt power grabs because of course the AI might actually turn on them. We think the probability that power becomes extremely concentrated is high enough to be very concerning. But we agree that it is far from guaranteed. It might be too hard to stop AI enabled power concentration. On the flip side, it might turn out that AI enabled power concentration is not worth working on because it's just too difficult to stop. The structural forces pushing towards AI enabled power concentration could be very strong. For example, if there's an enormous intelligence explosion which grants one AI developer exclusive access to godlike AI capabilities, then what happens next would arguably be at their sole discretion. Most actors who could stand to gain from AI enabled power concentration are already very powerful. They might oppose efforts to mitigate the risk, obfuscate what's going on, and interfere with other people's ability to coordinate against power concentration. But with that said, we don't think we should give up yet. We don't know yet how the structural dynamics will play out. We might be in a world where it's very possible to limit power concentration. And it's in almost everyone's interest to prevent AI enabled power concentration, including the interests of most powerful people today, since most of them stand to lose if one small group gains control of most important decisions. It might be possible to coordinate to prevent power concentration and make defecting very costly. There are already some interventions to prevent AI enabled power concentration that look promising. If this area receives more attention, we may well find more. Section 3. What can you do to help? Because so little work has been done on preventing AI enabled power concentration to date, there aren't yet interventions that we feel confident about directing lots of people towards. And there certainly aren't many jobs working directly on this issue. For now, our main advice for most people is to: 1. Bear the risk of AI enabled power Concentration in mind. We're more likely to avoid AI enabled power concentration if reasonable people are aware of this risk and want to prevent it. This is especially relevant if you work at an AI company or in AI governance and safety. Policies or new technologies will often have knock-on effects on power concentration, and by being aware of this, you might be able to avoid inadvertently increasing the risk. And 2, be sensitive to the fact that efforts to reduce this risk could backfire or increase other risks. There are also some promising early stage agendas and we think some people could start doing good work here already. We'd be really excited to see people working on the following: First, Law following AI, which involves training AI systems to follow the law and other constraints that would make it harder to use AI systems to seize power Second, alignment audits and systems integrity to prevent tampering. This would make it harder for malicious actors to insert secret loyalties or otherwise misuse AI systems to gain power. Third, building AI tools that improve people's ability to reason and coordinate. This could help people to understand what's happening in terms of power concentration and coordinate to protect their own interests. Fourth, develop and advocate for policies which distribute power over AI. This is less well scoped than the agendas above, but it could include policies for sharing AI capabilities and compute more widely, transparency into AI capabilities and their use, and whistleblower protections. For more ideas, you can look at the mitigation sections of the papers on AI-enabled Coups, Gradual Disempowerment and The Intelligence Curse, as well as the list of projects on gradual disempowerment we have listed at the end of this article on our website. The field is still at a very early stage, so a key thing to do might just be to follow the organisations and researchers doing work in this area and look out for ways to get involved. To learn more, we have a full list of papers, articles and podcast episodes listed at the end of this article on our website 80000hours.org. Search for “extreme power concentration.” Thank you for listening to Extreme Power Concentration, a problem profile article written by Rose Hadshar, first published in April 2025 and updated in December 2025.