r/StopHumanoidRobots

https://preview.redd.it/29419eka5dxg1.png?width=1869&format=png&auto=webp&s=a68bdc0242ec537ed9d749d3cf2093a4f7db43dd

(the following was written without ChatGPT, etc.)

(A 2 Minute Read)

Hello

In the weekly released “Moonshots" podcast on YouTube - hosted by entrepreneur and (so-called) ‘AI’ advocate Peter H. Diamandis - I heard an important remark that I wanted to address. Dr. Wissner-Gross - a regular panelist - said that the various movements to STOP AI (and petitions like ours) are unavoidably self-defeating. 

If, he argues, groups like ours succeeded in stopping a company from producing AI / robots, etc., then other groups would quickly jump in to fill the gap. And not only this - but in the absence of fewer competitors, these new groups might have access to more funding and opportunity and thus develop the tools faster.

On the one hand, I find it difficult to - even in principle - argue with this point. It seems Dr Wissner-Gross is merely stating an observable fact of free market economics. 

On the other hand, however, I think his own argument quietly bears its own self-defeating quality. Free Market economics is not SIMPLY peer pressure to win - Free Market economics is peer pressure to win at producing something that PEOPLE NEED. 

In theory, the reason why we tolerated the ‘Robber Barons’ of the last century - is because they were able to produce something that the rest of us could use. They made our lives a fraction of a percent more convenient, so we each gave them a fraction of our income - which combined to substantiate their fortune. 

But in the case of the market dominance of the so-called AI, it seems like there is ONLY the peer pressure to win in the abstract - and it is totally divorced from the need to provide a useful tool to the public. At best, it seems their race is to determine which company will have the power to determine what the public might needs. 

In reality, it may be more like an ant death spiral - where an ant found some kernel of food, got lost when trying to return to his home with it, and then all the ants somehow began to follow him as he went in circles towards his deadly exhaustion.  

From this perspective, the establishment of boundaries and common terms could actually help to settle this fervor - and do so to an extent that might surprise technologists and their advocates. Why? Because it would establish the terms of a marketplace that provides actual goods and services. 

Thank you for signing and sharing our petition.

Sincerely,

Michael Christensen

https://preview.redd.it/lt4wuxolufqg1.jpg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d4e3c87bc0edc05dc0f4040143755e9fd548bf57

(The following was written without ChatGPT, etc.)

Hello

Elon Musk has called the coming superintelligent AI (and all advanced machines) the ‘Supersonic Tsunami.’ This metaphor conjures images of an unstoppable, impending force that will tear through our world - and render it unrecognizable.

I think his metaphor is incorrect - the Tsunamis, after all, is a natural phenomenon that occurs without our intervention. So here’s another, nautical metaphor: 

We’re passengers on a huge, steel ship voyaging across the ocean. The sun has gone down just as our ship has entered a place cluttered with ice-bergs - and we’ll soon have to navigate this dangerous place in the dark. 

What’s worse, it seems only a handful of the ship’s crew will have the authority to guide the ship - regardless of what any of the innumerable, observant passengers might see.  

Neither optimism nor pessimism are useful. In this strange dilemma arising from our own ambition, perhaps only a good faith alertness will prevent this Titanic - or ‘Technological Titanic’ - from sinking. 

Thank you for helping to promote our petition to ‘STOP Elon Musk, or Tesla (or any company) from releasing HUMANOID ROBOTS.’

Sincerely,
Michael Christensen  

(Originally Published November 9, 2025 - Edited March 21, 2026) (Image Credit: MR1805)