The technical community has spent a decade issuing warnings. The warnings have not been heeded. What is needed now is not more research but political will, legal frameworks, and a global coalition powerful enough to pause the race before the finish line becomes a precipice.
The Nakada Foundation to Save Humanity was established on a single premise: that the most consequential decisions in human history, decisions that will determine whether our species survives, should not be made by a handful of engineers at five corporations in one country.
We are not aligned with the AI safety research establishment, which is largely funded by the same laboratories that are racing to build the systems it studies. We believe the incentive structure of the AI safety field is fundamentally compromised, and that the solution will not come from within the industry.
Narrow AI is transformative and beneficial. It can cure diseases, accelerate discovery, and expand human potential. We are not against AI. We are against building a form of intelligence that we cannot control, cannot align, and cannot stop.
Change requires external pressure: from governments, from law, from culture, and from people who understand that what is at stake is not a market outcome but the survival of the human species. We have a model for this. It is called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Unlike AI safety research organisations, we do not build, train, or experiment on AI systems. We do not accept funding that would create a conflict between our mission and our message.
Unlike AI ethics organisations, we focus exclusively on existential risk: not bias, fairness, or misuse of existing AI. These are important issues. They are not the same issue as extinction.
We operate like a political movement, not an academic institute. We seek to shift public opinion, build coalitions, and change law, the way every successful social movement in history has operated.
Direct advocacy in Washington D.C., Brussels, London, and with United Nations bodies. We are focused on binding frameworks, not voluntary guidelines, that pause the development of superintelligent AI systems.
Our policy work targets three chokepoints: compute infrastructure, where a small number of chip manufacturers control the hardware needed to train frontier models; frontier AI labs, where commercial incentives override safety commitments; and international bodies, where treaty frameworks must be built before capability races become irreversible.
Engaging the world's largest philanthropic foundations, heads of government, Nobel laureates, celebrities, and cultural figures to amplify the message, fund the cause, and shift the Overton window.
The history of effective advocacy is the history of unlikely coalitions. The civil rights movement united clergy, labour unions, and lawyers. The nuclear disarmament movement brought together physicists and poets. We are building the coalition that will make AI safety the defining political issue of this decade.
Commissioning art, film, journalism, and media that makes the danger visceral and undeniable. The climate movement failed for decades in part because the threat was abstract and distant. AI risk is neither, but it must be made to feel immediate.
Safety must be made prestigious, urgent, and impossible to ignore. We are working with filmmakers, novelists, game designers, and journalists to build the cultural infrastructure for a movement that will last.
These are not aspirations. They are specific, technically feasible policy interventions that governments could implement today. Each is modelled on precedents that already exist.
Require government licences for training runs exceeding a defined compute threshold (currently proposed at 1026 floating-point operations). Mandate independent safety audits before deployment. Create a verified, international registry of all frontier model training runs. Compute is the chokepoint. A small number of chip manufacturers, principally TSMC, NVIDIA, and ASML, control the hardware required to build frontier AI systems. Licensing at the compute layer is technically straightforward and verifiable.
A binding multilateral agreement to pause the development of AI systems exceeding a defined general capability threshold, modelled on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. No nation should be exempt. The NPT is imperfect, but it has prevented nuclear weapons use for eighty years. The standard objection ("other countries will defect") is precisely the argument made against nuclear non-proliferation. The answer is not to race. The answer is a treaty with verification mechanisms.
An intergovernmental body with inspection rights, analogous to the International Atomic Energy Agency, empowered to verify compliance with compute limits and mandate safe development practices at frontier AI laboratories. The IAEA was created within three years of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. A Global AI Monitoring Agency is achievable on the same timeline if the political will exists. Its mandate would include mandatory reporting of training runs, on-site inspections of major AI laboratories, and the authority to issue binding recommendations to member states.
You are that constituency. Join us and help build the political force that makes this possible.