# The Cost of Conflict: Why Enmity in AI Safety Discourse Could Backfire

> Coverage of lessw-blog

**Published:** March 09, 2026
**Author:** PSEEDR Editorial
**Category:** risk
**Content tier:** free
**Accessible for free:** true



**Word count:** 485


**Tags:** AI Safety, Communication Strategy, AI Governance, Risk Mitigation, LessWrong

**Canonical URL:** https://pseedr.com/risk/the-cost-of-conflict-why-enmity-in-ai-safety-discourse-could-backfire

---

A recent analysis from lessw-blog explores a critical meta-issue in the AI safety community: how aggressive advocacy and the promotion of enmity might inadvertently increase catastrophic risks.

**The Hook**

In a recent post, lessw-blog discusses the detrimental impact of promoting enmity within AI safety discourse. As the conversation around artificial intelligence risk grows louder and more mainstream, the methods and rhetoric used to raise awareness are increasingly coming under scrutiny. The post highlights a critical meta-issue: the social dynamics and communication strategies employed by advocates might be working against their ultimate goals.

**The Context**

The AI safety landscape is currently highly polarized. Advocates, researchers, industry leaders, and policymakers frequently clash over development timelines, model capabilities, and the severity of potential existential risks. While constructive conflict and rigorous debate are natural, necessary components of scientific and policy advancement, crossing the line into outright hostility can severely fracture the community. This topic is critical because effective AI risk mitigation requires broad, sustained collaboration across competing laboratories, international governments, and independent research institutions. When communication strategies foster resentment and tribalism rather than cooperation, the pathways to establishing safe AI development frameworks become significantly narrower and more difficult to navigate.

**The Gist**

lessw-blog's post explores these complex dynamics by proposing a specific, dangerous causal pathway: Promoting Enmity leads to Conflict, which ultimately increases the likelihood of Catastrophe (PE→C→C). The author argues that certain well-intentioned activities designed to raise awareness about AI extinction risks are inadvertently acting as a "hyperstition"-a concept where bringing a hostile scenario to collective attention actually manifests it into reality. By constantly anticipating and preparing for adversarial behavior from other groups, advocates make that exact behavior more likely to occur. The analysis draws a sharp distinction between constructive disagreement and true enmity. While the former allows for compromise and progress, enmity actively prevents positive trade relations, trust-building, and collaboration between parties. Crucially, the post suggests that this promotion of enmity is consequential but often entirely avoidable. Even in situations where underlying hostility is believed to exist, advocates can choose to control how, how often, and in what forums these adversarial dynamics are discussed. By doing so, the AI safety community can continue to advocate fiercely for caution and rigorous safety measures without poisoning the well of public and institutional discourse.

**Conclusion**

For anyone involved in AI governance, technical safety research, or tech policy communication, understanding the social and psychological dynamics of advocacy is just as important as mastering the technical arguments themselves. Mitigating these negative social dynamics is essential for building the coalitions necessary to secure our technological future. [Read the full post on lessw-blog](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/A3rP5dQJnfARcWSpg/promoting-enmity-and-bad-vibes-around-ai-safety) to explore the proposed mitigations, the nuances of the hyperstition effect, and the full scope of the PE→C→C pathway.

### Key Takeaways

*   Certain AI safety advocacy strategies inadvertently promote enmity, which may increase overall AI and extinction risks.
*   The author identifies a causal pathway where promoting enmity leads to conflict, eventually resulting in catastrophe (PE→C→C).
*   Enmity is distinct from constructive conflict; it fundamentally prevents positive trade and collaboration between opposing groups.
*   Discussing adversarial dynamics can act as a hyperstition, making hostility more likely simply by bringing it to collective attention.
*   Promoting enmity is often avoidable by strategically managing how and where inter-group conflicts are discussed.

[Read the original post at lessw-blog](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/A3rP5dQJnfARcWSpg/promoting-enmity-and-bad-vibes-around-ai-safety)

---

## Sources

- https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/A3rP5dQJnfARcWSpg/promoting-enmity-and-bad-vibes-around-ai-safety