[rl3]

>Would restricting advancement have been a better plan than letting new intelligence be birthed, even if it destroyed all the old ways?

In other words, ban technology or give up. Of course, banning technology is fruitless for the reasons you outlined.

Arguably the only sane solution is to attempt building AGI in the safest and most ethical way possible, and doing it before anyone far more reckless or unethical can.

Granted it'll still probably fail and destroy us all (controlling something smarter than you is really hard), but putting forth humanity's best effort sure beats surrendering to fate—or worse, the aforementioned fanatic in a marginalized country.

[AnimalMuppet]

You're presuming that there will only be a single origin. I think that's false. Even if "we" build AGI "in the safest and most ethical way possible", there will be a "they" who doesn't.

[rl3]

A multipolar scenario is possible but unlikely. If the technology easily scales, then whoever arrives at it first will probably win.

[AnimalMuppet]

If the technology creates a rapid positive feedback loop, singularity-style, then I might agree. If not, though... well, if not, it won't matter as much, because there will be less to fear from an AI that can't rapidly improve itself.