Vitalik Buterin urges Elon Musk to reshape X to promote artificial intelligence governance

Vitalik Buterin calls on Musk to build X into a global AI governance coordination platform

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin calls on Elon Musk to reshape the X platform into a space where ordinary users can participate in coordinating global AI governance, rather than leaving key decision-making power entirely to governments and large institutions.

Core Views

Buterin urged Musk to transform X into a global AI governance coordination platform. He proposed setting up a predetermined trigger mechanism for AI development slowdown, while supporting open participation and opposing centralized control. This proposal comes as SpaceXAI prepares to release Grok 4.5 and OpenAI prepares to launch GPT-5.6.

According to a long article published by Buterin on Platform X, social media platforms can become places for people to participate in major AI policy discussions through open coordination, rather than relying solely on governments, large AI laboratories or non-profit organizations.

In this post, Buterin believes that X has the unique advantage of helping people reach so-called "significant win-win agreements" on AI governance. He told Musk directly that if he operated the platform himself, he would redesign its functionality to identify consensuses that allow more people to influence decision-making, rather than concentrating power in the hands of governments, technology companies and leading institutions.

The proposal builds on concepts previously discussed by Buterin. In an earlier post, he praised X's community note taking system and predictive marketing as two of the most important social technologies to increase public awareness. At the same time, he also warned that if the platform's incentives go in the wrong direction, it could become a tool to coordinate sexual harassment, making governance change even more important to him.

Buterin's proposal comes at a time when the AI race is accelerating-SpaceXAI released Grok 4.5 and OpenAI also launched GPT-5.6. Before Grok 4.5 was publicly released, Musk described it on X as an "Opus level model" that was faster, more token efficient, and lower cost based on positive test feedback.

Encryption tools may benefit if X adopts the model

In addition to proposing changes for X, Buterin also elaborated on what he sees as the most significant divergence in the AI debate. According to his post, one faction believes that unless the development rate slows down significantly, artificial super intelligence may emerge around 2040; the other faction views AI as a continuation of previous technological progress and disagrees with warnings about existential risks and centralized control.

Although Buterin said he is still uncertain about the AI development timeline, he advocates establishing preset conditions to temporarily slow down AI development if necessary. He cited examples such as the emergence of a superpandemic, unemployment exceeding 25%, or the widespread deployment of autonomous and lethal drones.

These proposals are consistent with Buterin's "defensive acceleration"(d/acc) framework. The framework prioritizes technologies such as cryptography, formal verification, secure open hardware, pandemic prevention, and more powerful public information systems. This concept has also influenced Ethereum's technology roadmap. Buterin has repeatedly supported privacy-centered infrastructure construction through a vision known as "Lean Ethereum."

For the crypto market, if X evolves into a coordinated platform, Buterin's proposal foreshadows a greater role for decentralized infrastructure. Forecasting markets can be used to verify whether predetermined AI-triggering events occur, while zero-knowledge technologies and on-chain governance systems may also gain more attention if organizations adopt more transparent decision-making processes.

Despite this, Buterin did not call for new AI regulatory measures. Instead, his post advocated coordination among participants with different views, proposing a framework that attempts to strike a balance between open participation and guarding against the consequences of high-risk AI.