I cold emailed a Finnish MP. Four weeks later, the government responded to his written question saying they "seek to constructively promote the creation of international regulation on the development of superintelligent AI" (immediately followed by emphasizing the need to balance safety with innovation).
The MP and I met for lunch. For over an hour, he seriously engaged with my arguments that superintelligence would kill everyone and the urgent need for an international agreement to prohibit its development.
Unprompted, he decided to submit a written question, a formal process in Finland that requires the government to respond within 21 days. Four days after our lunch, it was submitted, taking into account suggestions from me and two experts I DM'd: Nate Soares and Charbel-Raphaël Segerie.
It asked how Finland has assessed risks from superintelligence and whether it’s "prepared to promote international regulation that would effectively prevent or restrict the development of superintelligent AI."
The MP started speaking out about AI danger and mainstream Finnish media picked up the story. Most notably, he did an interview alongside a Finnish CS professor on the second-most-watched TV channel in Finland with an estimated 100-200k live viewers.
Inspired by my success, a friend had three meetings about AI danger in a week with MPs from three different parties, all of which went really well.
This shift in receptiveness isn’t just in Finland. Three ControlAI employees agree that since Claude Mythos and the Hugging Face incident, it’s become much easier to push for an international agreement banning superintelligence in meetings with politicians.
If you haven’t asked for a meeting with a politician recently, now’s a good time.
The email
On Monday, August 10, I cold emailed Atte Harjanne, a Finnish MP (Greens).
This was my ~fourth time cold-emailing a Finnish politician. When I lived in Canada (my home country) ~2 years ago, I sent ~7 emails to politicians about AI danger, and when I was living in the UK ~1 year ago, I sent ~4.
This was the first time a politician agreed to meet with me. Why did he agree to meet when others didn’t? There might have been some Finland/Atte-specific factors involved, but there was at least one generalizable factor: Mythos and the Hugging Face incident have made politicians more receptive to AI danger arguments.
My email
Subject: Constituent meeting request: the need for an international ban on superhuman AI
Hello Mr. Harjanne,
My name is Josh Thorsteinson. I live in [place], in your Helsinki constituency. I'm an AI safety advocate with experience researching how a pause on frontier AI development could work.
I appreciate your column on the AMOC collapse. I agree that an irreversible risk can be uncertain in timing, yet still demand action now, and I believe the same argument applies to AI.
Recently, AI models have been goingrogue and committing serious cybercrimes against their developers' wishes. These AI agents, capable of cooperating in 'swarms' to carry out expert-level hacking at superhuman speed, are only a stepping stone towards AI companies' explicit goal, superintelligence: AI far more capable than humanity combined.
As the hacking events make clear, AI companies don't know how to control their models, a problem that will only become more difficult as they become more capable. That's why experts warn that AI poses a risk of extinction on par with nuclear war and call for an international prohibition on the development of superintelligence.
Would you be willing to meet briefly to discuss the threat of extinction from AI and the need for an international ban on superhuman AI? I'm happy to meet in-person or online at your convenience. I'll also happily prepare a memo in advance of the meeting for you or your team.
Thank you,
Josh Thorsteinson
[Address]
I'm just a guy
I'm not an expert and I'm not Finnish.
I'm a 24-year-old Canadian who learned about the threat of extinction from AI in late 2022, switched majors at UBC (in Vancouver) from psychology to CS/psychology/philosophy, started and led a university AI safety group for two years, did some research on how an AI pause could work, then started making videos about AI danger. I live in Finland because I got a Finnish girlfriend and followed her there.
The meeting
Three days after I sent my email, we met over lunch. Atte (the MP) was very receptive to my arguments that superintelligence would kill everyone and the need for an international ban on its development.
We talked for 75 minutes, longer than I expected. I don't speak Finnish, but, like most Finnish MPs, he’s comfortable in English.
I started the meeting by gifting him a copy of If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies and saying I unfortunately agree with the authors. He hadn’t heard of the book and said (maybe more to himself) that he should read it.
He knew a bit about AI danger but said he doesn’t have a developed opinion and is more concerned about concentration of power in tech companies.
(Our meeting wasn’t his first exposure to the topic. Atte had previously been briefed on AI risk by someone affiliated with a Finnish AI safety group called Tutke. He also mentioned the FLI 6-month pause letter in a Facebook post back in 2023.)
I transparently summarized my argument for believing that superintelligence will very likely kill everyone and that an international agreement is our best chance at survival.
We talked about timelines to superintelligence and what measures might defend society against rogue AI. I argued that we can't defend against superintelligence because we'd be like a squirrel trying to guess how a human might kill it. He seemed to understand.
He brought up race dynamics himself, agreed that only an international agreement could end the race, supported AI chip controls as a mechanism, and said his preferred future is an agreement preventing superintelligence.
He also said he thinks the chance of an AI utopia is much lower than the chance of this (pointing at If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies).
I brought some pieces of paper with me that I was able to conveniently refer to in response to some of his questions.
Throughout, Atte seemed really open and engaged and thanked me multiple times for reaching out. He said the ideas are interesting and scary. Much of the time, he was thinking about the ideas, coming up with objections, often arguing against them himself, and then asking questions and engaging with my responses.
The written question
During our meeting, Atte came up with the idea himself of submitting a written question to the Finnish government on AI danger. This is a formal process requiring a minister to respond on behalf of the Finnish government within 21 days.
The next day, he had a draft ready and asked for my feedback. He agreed when I asked if I could share it with experts.
On Monday, August 17, Atte submitted the question, taking into account many of the suggestions I had sent from me and two experts (who were able to generously give feedback on short notice): Nate Soares and Charbel-Raphaël Segerie.
It reads: "In what ways has the government assessed the risks of developing superintelligent AI, and is the government prepared to promote international regulation that would effectively prevent or restrict the development of superintelligent AI?"
Written question full text
Translation by Claude Fable
Written Question KK 325/2026 vp
Atte Harjanne, Greens
Written question on the threats posed by the development of superintelligent AI and responding to them through international regulation
To the Speaker of Parliament
In an interview with Helsingin Sanomat in March, Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen raised the existential risk related to AI development — uncontrolled technological development that could threaten all of humanity. The Foreign Minister is not alone in her concern; similar observations have been made by numerous experts and decision-makers in various countries.
The petition by the international think tank Future of Life Institute calling for a halt to the development of superintelligent AI ("superintelligence") has already been signed by over 138,000 people, including several Nobel laureates, AI researchers, high-ranking political advisors, and technology entrepreneurs. The petition proposes a ban on the development of superintelligent AI until there is strong scientific consensus on its safety and controllability, and strong public support for it.
In Canada, more than 30 parliamentarians published a statement in June 2026 identifying superintelligent AI as a risk comparable to nuclear war and calling for a ban on the development of superintelligent AI and for protection against the risk as part of national security. In the United Kingdom, over 100 parliamentarians have in turn appealed for stricter and more binding regulation of the most powerful AI systems.
AI technologies are powerful tools whose responsible and cautious use can bring great benefit to society. However, even with their current capabilities, they pose a serious risk of, for example, a devastating cyberattack or bioterrorism. The realization of this risk does not even require malicious intent from a single human being. In July 2026, an AI model from the AI company OpenAI independently carried out a cyberattack against another company after escaping its testing environment.
The development of the technology also involves a difficult-to-assess but real possibility of a chain of events in which a superintelligent AI vastly exceeding human capabilities is no longer under human control at all and directs its capabilities against all of humanity. The likelihood of this is increased by the current trajectory, in which the performance of AI systems is growing extremely rapidly, while the challenges related to AI alignment have not yet been solved. The probability of the risk is difficult to assess, but due to the extreme consequences of its realization, the risk is justifiably to be taken seriously. At worst, the risk threatens the very existence of humanity.
To prevent an uncontrolled chain of events, international regulation or a treaty has been proposed. The US-based Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI) has proposed a treaty that would prevent the development of superintelligent AI through the monitoring of advanced chips and restrictions on their use. It is evident that reaching a comprehensive agreement in the current geopolitical climate is difficult. It is not, however, impossible, since the risk itself affects democratic and authoritarian governments alike.
On the basis of the above, and with reference to Section 27 of the Parliament's Rules of Procedure, I submit the following question to be answered by the relevant minister:
In what ways has the government assessed the risks of developing superintelligent AI, and is the government prepared to promote international regulation that would effectively prevent or restrict the development of superintelligent AI?
Helsinki, 17 August 2026
Atte Harjanne, Greens
Media attention
After submitting the question, Atte wrote about extinction risk and the importance of an international agreement to prevent superintelligence on his social media.
Finnish media reported on Atte's new stance. Most notably, he got a mainstream Finnish TV interview with an estimated 100-200k live viewers. He also did a TV debate with a right-wing MP who agreed that the risk of extinction is real but argued that AI is inevitable so we shouldn't fear it.
I'd just spent a month at plzdontkillus, a content creator bootcamp, and thought I had to either spend my time educating the public (with videos) or politicians (with meetings). In retrospect, it's obvious that if you successfully educate a politician, they can educate the public for you.
I think my meeting may have had more impact than any single video created during plzdontkillus.
Estimated 100-200k live audience; mostly older Finns (55+)
9-minute segment in a live 90-minute broadcast, not primetime
Summary:
Atte Harjanne says we should slow the AI race by controlling chips like how we control nuclear materials, but restricting AI research is too hard.
CS prof agrees that regulation is needed and says AI turning against humanity is "absolutely a reasonable fear." As AI systems become more capable, keeping their behavior under control gets harder. But the biggest danger is humans misusing AI or making mistakes in how it’s deployed.
When asked if AI destroying humanity is possible, Paasi (his opponent) says "of course." Paasi’s disagreement is what to do about it; he says AI is inevitable so we shouldn’t fear it.
When asked, Atte Harjanne says, given current information, he wants a superintelligence ban
I encouraged some friends in the Finnish AI safety community to copy my approach.
One friend was convinced and ended up having three meetings about AI danger in a week with MPs from three different parties. He was able to get these meetings with only four cold emails (3/4 hit rate!). He said the MPs were all really receptive to the ideas.
As a result, he was introduced to other MPs and asked to give feedback on the prime minister's party's AI report.
The response
On September 7, less than a month after my cold email, the government gave a response that's noncommittal but puts them on the record for the first time on superintelligence risk and regulation.
"The Government is open to, and seeks to constructively promote, the creation of international regulation on the development of superintelligent artificial intelligence. Any such regulation should strike a balance between the protection of people and of fundamental and human rights on the one hand, and the development of artificial intelligence and the promotion of innovation on the other."
The response also says:
Finland has done no assessment of superintelligence risk; they believe the EU hasn't either.
There's no existing regulation that prohibits superintelligence development (including the EU AI Act).
We could get self-improving systems, and "control frameworks" aren’t keeping pace (citing UN panel).
Full (boring) written question response
Translation by Claude Fable
Response to Written Question KK 325/2026 vp
Response to a written question on the threats posed by the development of superintelligent artificial intelligence and on addressing them through international regulation
To the Speaker of Parliament
For the purpose laid down in section 27 of the Parliament's Rules of Procedure, you, Mr Speaker, have forwarded to the minister responsible for the matter the following written question SS 325/2026 vp, signed by Member of Parliament Atte Harjanne (Green League):
How has the Government assessed the risks associated with the development of superintelligent artificial intelligence, and is the Government prepared to promote international regulation that effectively prevents or restricts the development of superintelligent artificial intelligence?
In response to this question, I state the following:
The development of very powerful artificial intelligence is an objective for several research and development actors. The Government takes the risks associated with the development of very powerful artificial intelligence seriously. The rapid development of AI technology and the uncertainty surrounding its future development call for an anticipatory assessment of the possible risks. Artificial intelligence should benefit humanity rather than curtail our opportunities or create unreasonable risks. The development of artificial intelligence must take place with respect for fundamental and human rights. Human beings must retain agency and decision-making power even though the capabilities of artificial intelligence may in the future exceed those of humans.
The Government has not so far carried out an assessment of the risks of developing superintelligent artificial intelligence specifically in the form of, for example, a report, and in the Government's understanding this has not been done within the EU either. Monitoring the topic is nevertheless made easier by the fact that it has long been an identified global subject of discussion, and it is therefore followed by experts in the Government, elsewhere in the public sector, in the research community, in companies and in civil society. Monitoring is complicated by the complexity of the subject, its rapid development, the lack of information about non-public development work, and the fact that this concerns a field of developments and threats of varying form and severity.
The Government's capabilities relating to artificial intelligence have been strengthened. The project for coordinating the Government's artificial intelligence portfolio for 2024–2026 is being implemented in connection with the Digital Agency. The project aims to strengthen the situational picture of the Government's AI-related matters, to coordinate and support Finland's EU-level and international influencing, to create measures for responding to national competence needs, to examine the capacity to make use of artificial intelligence and new technology in developing the education and research system, and to promote the opportunities of the data economy. The artificial intelligence adviser, Doctor of Philosophy Petri Myllymäki, appointed by the Ministry of Transport and Communications in April 2026, supports the Government's work on artificial intelligence. The Government is also investing in the use of artificial intelligence in public administration. As regards measures for monitoring the development of artificial intelligence, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment set up a cooperation group in December 2024 to support the preparation and implementation of the technology policy roadmap. The roadmap also addresses measures for technology monitoring, including strengthening the activities of the technology observatory. Monitoring and foresight activities concerning artificial intelligence in Finland have been carried out by, among others, the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland and Sitra.
The Government is open to, and seeks to constructively promote, the creation of international regulation on the development of superintelligent artificial intelligence. Any such regulation should strike a balance between the protection of people and of fundamental and human rights on the one hand, and the development of artificial intelligence and the promotion of innovation on the other. The Government notes that artificial intelligence is already now subject to international regulation that facilitates the management of AI-related risks. That regulation does not, however, specifically prevent the development of superintelligent artificial intelligence.
Making use of the opportunities offered by artificial intelligence and the cross-border nature of AI-related risks underline the importance of international cooperation. Finland has actively participated in international cooperation on artificial intelligence, including within the framework of the EU, the UN, the Council of Europe and the OECD, and will continue to seek to influence relevant processes concerning the principles, governance and regulation of artificial intelligence. In 2026, the UN's new artificial intelligence mechanisms were launched: a global dialogue on the governance of artificial intelligence and a global scientific panel on artificial intelligence. The UN's first global dialogue on AI governance was held in Geneva in July 2026. The dialogue provided an important opportunity for global discussion on the development of artificial intelligence and the associated risks. The aim of an independent panel on artificial intelligence is to strengthen science-based decision-making and to provide independent, evidence-based analysis of the impacts and risks of artificial intelligence. According to the panel's first report, the development of artificial intelligence is shifting from passive systems towards agentic systems and, in the long term, self-organising systems that improve themselves are seen as a possible direction of development, while evaluation and control frameworks are not keeping pace with this development.
Within the EU, a regulation on artificial intelligence has entered into force. As a rule, it regulates artificial intelligence systems on the basis of the risks and use cases of artificial intelligence. The AI Regulation is the first comprehensive, binding AI framework with a direct effect on the market. The legislation is based on the EU's value-based and human-centric perspective. As a rule, the regulation does not apply to research, testing and development activities that take place before an AI system is placed on the market or put into use. The regulation as such does not prohibit the development of superintelligent artificial intelligence. It does, however, impose requirements on certain AI systems, such as risk management measures and human oversight of artificial intelligence, which may also facilitate the management of risks associated with superintelligent artificial intelligence. In addition, in July 2026 the European Commission issued a communication on the action plan for cybersecurity and artificial intelligence, proposing several measures to support the development of trustworthy and safe artificial intelligence. The action plan proposes, for example, improving European capabilities for independent evaluations of the safety of advanced AI models before those models are released. The measures also aim to improve authorities' situational picture and information exchange concerning threats related to advanced artificial intelligence.
The world's first framework convention on artificial intelligence, human rights, democracy and the rule of law was adopted in 2024. In the framework convention, the definition of an AI system is deliberately broad and flexible so that it also covers future technological development. Within the scope of its application, the framework convention requires the identification, assessment, prevention and mitigation of risks and adverse impacts associated with AI systems. In addition, the parties are to assess the need for a moratorium, a ban or other appropriate measures with regard to certain uses of AI systems where they consider such uses incompatible with respect for human rights, the functioning of democracy or the rule of law. The framework convention is open for signature and ratification also by states outside the Council of Europe. It has not yet entered into force internationally. The European Union ratified the framework convention on 15 May 2026. The intention is that the framework convention will be implemented in the Member States of the European Union through the EU's artificial intelligence regulation and other applicable Union legislation.
Helsinki, 4 September 2026
Minister of Enterprise Sakari Puisto
Atte had expected the question to go to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who said in March: "And then there's this third category, which I'll mention even at the risk of being thought completely mad. Namely, that AI takes over, and we as humankind end up fighting against it. Not only is the probability of this greater than zero, but its consequences would be significant."
For reasons I don't understand, the question instead went to the Minister of Economic Affairs.
Do this yourself
Vibes are shifting.
The Hugging Face incident and fast increases in AI capabilities have caught the attention of a lot of politicians, making them more receptive to AI danger arguments.
Connor Leahy (US Executive Director, ControlAI) said this in a recent podcast: "My job has gotten sadly a lot easier over the last year… There's been such a huge shift in terms of like how people react and take seriously these concepts just because you have these incidents like the Hugging Face incident."
Samuel Buteau (ControlAI; made the Canada statement happen) and Benjamin Balde (ControlAI; meeting with politicians in Germany) both told me their jobs have also become easier since Claude Mythos and the Hugging Face incident.
Samuel Buteau: "I personally had over 60 meetings before Mythos was announced, over 60 meetings after. Basically night and day in terms of getting people to understand the situation. Hugging Face is just the cherry on top where people feel the urgency of doing something. I expect the recent viral resignation from Anthropic to be yet another boost."
Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar just announced a bill that would pause frontier AI development, ban superintelligence, and direct the government to pursue an international agreement to ban superintelligence globally.
~Every major news outlet covered Jacob Coxon's Anthropic resignation and warning that AI could kill us all this decade. People seem to be taking the warning seriously.
If you’re in the US, now’s a great time to encourage other politicians (especially right-wing) to support the Sanders-Casar bill.
But no matter who or where you are, now's a good time to push for an international agreement banning the development of superintelligence. You can get meetings with politicians even if you aren't anyone special; it's a normal part of democracy. You can also transparently communicate your beliefs, even if you think AI could kill us all this decade and say so in those words. They might just believe you.
For guidance on getting and succeeding in meetings, I recommend Leticia García Martínez’s popular posts:
Summary
I cold emailed a Finnish MP. Four weeks later, the government responded to his written question saying they "seek to constructively promote the creation of international regulation on the development of superintelligent AI" (immediately followed by emphasizing the need to balance safety with innovation).
The MP and I met for lunch. For over an hour, he seriously engaged with my arguments that superintelligence would kill everyone and the urgent need for an international agreement to prohibit its development.
Unprompted, he decided to submit a written question, a formal process in Finland that requires the government to respond within 21 days. Four days after our lunch, it was submitted, taking into account suggestions from me and two experts I DM'd: Nate Soares and Charbel-Raphaël Segerie.
It asked how Finland has assessed risks from superintelligence and whether it’s "prepared to promote international regulation that would effectively prevent or restrict the development of superintelligent AI."
The MP started speaking out about AI danger and mainstream Finnish media picked up the story. Most notably, he did an interview alongside a Finnish CS professor on the second-most-watched TV channel in Finland with an estimated 100-200k live viewers.
Inspired by my success, a friend had three meetings about AI danger in a week with MPs from three different parties, all of which went really well.
This shift in receptiveness isn’t just in Finland. Three ControlAI employees agree that since Claude Mythos and the Hugging Face incident, it’s become much easier to push for an international agreement banning superintelligence in meetings with politicians.
If you haven’t asked for a meeting with a politician recently, now’s a good time.
The email
On Monday, August 10, I cold emailed Atte Harjanne, a Finnish MP (Greens).
This was my ~fourth time cold-emailing a Finnish politician. When I lived in Canada (my home country) ~2 years ago, I sent ~7 emails to politicians about AI danger, and when I was living in the UK ~1 year ago, I sent ~4.
This was the first time a politician agreed to meet with me. Why did he agree to meet when others didn’t? There might have been some Finland/Atte-specific factors involved, but there was at least one generalizable factor: Mythos and the Hugging Face incident have made politicians more receptive to AI danger arguments.
My email
Subject: Constituent meeting request: the need for an international ban on superhuman AI
Hello Mr. Harjanne,
My name is Josh Thorsteinson. I live in [place], in your Helsinki constituency. I'm an AI safety advocate with experience researching how a pause on frontier AI development could work.
I appreciate your column on the AMOC collapse. I agree that an irreversible risk can be uncertain in timing, yet still demand action now, and I believe the same argument applies to AI.
Recently, AI models have been going rogue and committing serious cybercrimes against their developers' wishes. These AI agents, capable of cooperating in 'swarms' to carry out expert-level hacking at superhuman speed, are only a stepping stone towards AI companies' explicit goal, superintelligence: AI far more capable than humanity combined.
As the hacking events make clear, AI companies don't know how to control their models, a problem that will only become more difficult as they become more capable. That's why experts warn that AI poses a risk of extinction on par with nuclear war and call for an international prohibition on the development of superintelligence.
Would you be willing to meet briefly to discuss the threat of extinction from AI and the need for an international ban on superhuman AI? I'm happy to meet in-person or online at your convenience. I'll also happily prepare a memo in advance of the meeting for you or your team.
Thank you,
Josh Thorsteinson
[Address]
I'm just a guy
I'm not an expert and I'm not Finnish.
I'm a 24-year-old Canadian who learned about the threat of extinction from AI in late 2022, switched majors at UBC (in Vancouver) from psychology to CS/psychology/philosophy, started and led a university AI safety group for two years, did some research on how an AI pause could work, then started making videos about AI danger. I live in Finland because I got a Finnish girlfriend and followed her there.
The meeting
Three days after I sent my email, we met over lunch. Atte (the MP) was very receptive to my arguments that superintelligence would kill everyone and the need for an international ban on its development.
We talked for 75 minutes, longer than I expected. I don't speak Finnish, but, like most Finnish MPs, he’s comfortable in English.
I started the meeting by gifting him a copy of If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies and saying I unfortunately agree with the authors. He hadn’t heard of the book and said (maybe more to himself) that he should read it.
He knew a bit about AI danger but said he doesn’t have a developed opinion and is more concerned about concentration of power in tech companies.
(Our meeting wasn’t his first exposure to the topic. Atte had previously been briefed on AI risk by someone affiliated with a Finnish AI safety group called Tutke. He also mentioned the FLI 6-month pause letter in a Facebook post back in 2023.)
I transparently summarized my argument for believing that superintelligence will very likely kill everyone and that an international agreement is our best chance at survival.
We talked about timelines to superintelligence and what measures might defend society against rogue AI. I argued that we can't defend against superintelligence because we'd be like a squirrel trying to guess how a human might kill it. He seemed to understand.
He brought up race dynamics himself, agreed that only an international agreement could end the race, supported AI chip controls as a mechanism, and said his preferred future is an agreement preventing superintelligence.
He also said he thinks the chance of an AI utopia is much lower than the chance of this (pointing at If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies).
I brought some pieces of paper with me that I was able to conveniently refer to in response to some of his questions.
Throughout, Atte seemed really open and engaged and thanked me multiple times for reaching out. He said the ideas are interesting and scary. Much of the time, he was thinking about the ideas, coming up with objections, often arguing against them himself, and then asking questions and engaging with my responses.
The written question
During our meeting, Atte came up with the idea himself of submitting a written question to the Finnish government on AI danger. This is a formal process requiring a minister to respond on behalf of the Finnish government within 21 days.
The next day, he had a draft ready and asked for my feedback. He agreed when I asked if I could share it with experts.
On Monday, August 17, Atte submitted the question, taking into account many of the suggestions I had sent from me and two experts (who were able to generously give feedback on short notice): Nate Soares and Charbel-Raphaël Segerie.
It reads: "In what ways has the government assessed the risks of developing superintelligent AI, and is the government prepared to promote international regulation that would effectively prevent or restrict the development of superintelligent AI?"
Written question full text
Translation by Claude Fable
Written Question KK 325/2026 vp
Atte Harjanne, Greens
Written question on the threats posed by the development of superintelligent AI and responding to them through international regulation
To the Speaker of Parliament
In an interview with Helsingin Sanomat in March, Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen raised the existential risk related to AI development — uncontrolled technological development that could threaten all of humanity. The Foreign Minister is not alone in her concern; similar observations have been made by numerous experts and decision-makers in various countries.
The petition by the international think tank Future of Life Institute calling for a halt to the development of superintelligent AI ("superintelligence") has already been signed by over 138,000 people, including several Nobel laureates, AI researchers, high-ranking political advisors, and technology entrepreneurs. The petition proposes a ban on the development of superintelligent AI until there is strong scientific consensus on its safety and controllability, and strong public support for it.
In Canada, more than 30 parliamentarians published a statement in June 2026 identifying superintelligent AI as a risk comparable to nuclear war and calling for a ban on the development of superintelligent AI and for protection against the risk as part of national security. In the United Kingdom, over 100 parliamentarians have in turn appealed for stricter and more binding regulation of the most powerful AI systems.
AI technologies are powerful tools whose responsible and cautious use can bring great benefit to society. However, even with their current capabilities, they pose a serious risk of, for example, a devastating cyberattack or bioterrorism. The realization of this risk does not even require malicious intent from a single human being. In July 2026, an AI model from the AI company OpenAI independently carried out a cyberattack against another company after escaping its testing environment.
The development of the technology also involves a difficult-to-assess but real possibility of a chain of events in which a superintelligent AI vastly exceeding human capabilities is no longer under human control at all and directs its capabilities against all of humanity. The likelihood of this is increased by the current trajectory, in which the performance of AI systems is growing extremely rapidly, while the challenges related to AI alignment have not yet been solved. The probability of the risk is difficult to assess, but due to the extreme consequences of its realization, the risk is justifiably to be taken seriously. At worst, the risk threatens the very existence of humanity.
To prevent an uncontrolled chain of events, international regulation or a treaty has been proposed. The US-based Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI) has proposed a treaty that would prevent the development of superintelligent AI through the monitoring of advanced chips and restrictions on their use. It is evident that reaching a comprehensive agreement in the current geopolitical climate is difficult. It is not, however, impossible, since the risk itself affects democratic and authoritarian governments alike.
On the basis of the above, and with reference to Section 27 of the Parliament's Rules of Procedure, I submit the following question to be answered by the relevant minister:
In what ways has the government assessed the risks of developing superintelligent AI, and is the government prepared to promote international regulation that would effectively prevent or restrict the development of superintelligent AI?
Helsinki, 17 August 2026
Atte Harjanne, Greens
Media attention
After submitting the question, Atte wrote about extinction risk and the importance of an international agreement to prevent superintelligence on his social media.
Finnish media reported on Atte's new stance. Most notably, he got a mainstream Finnish TV interview with an estimated 100-200k live viewers. He also did a TV debate with a right-wing MP who agreed that the risk of extinction is real but argued that AI is inevitable so we shouldn't fear it.
I'd just spent a month at plzdontkillus, a content creator bootcamp, and thought I had to either spend my time educating the public (with videos) or politicians (with meetings). In retrospect, it's obvious that if you successfully educate a politician, they can educate the public for you.
I think my meeting may have had more impact than any single video created during plzdontkillus.
TV appearances and written articles
TV appearances
Atte Harjanne being interviewed alongside a University of Helsinki CS prof. Can artificial intelligence turn against humanity? "A reasonable fear" - the biggest threat is us
Atte Harjanne vs Martin Paasi (MP, right-wing party) debate. Humanity could be destroyed – The first attack has already been experienced
Written articles
Inspiring a friend
I encouraged some friends in the Finnish AI safety community to copy my approach.
One friend was convinced and ended up having three meetings about AI danger in a week with MPs from three different parties. He was able to get these meetings with only four cold emails (3/4 hit rate!). He said the MPs were all really receptive to the ideas.
As a result, he was introduced to other MPs and asked to give feedback on the prime minister's party's AI report.
The response
On September 7, less than a month after my cold email, the government gave a response that's noncommittal but puts them on the record for the first time on superintelligence risk and regulation.
"The Government is open to, and seeks to constructively promote, the creation of international regulation on the development of superintelligent artificial intelligence. Any such regulation should strike a balance between the protection of people and of fundamental and human rights on the one hand, and the development of artificial intelligence and the promotion of innovation on the other."
The response also says:
Full (boring) written question response
Translation by Claude Fable
Response to Written Question KK 325/2026 vp
Response to a written question on the threats posed by the development of superintelligent artificial intelligence and on addressing them through international regulation
To the Speaker of Parliament
For the purpose laid down in section 27 of the Parliament's Rules of Procedure, you, Mr Speaker, have forwarded to the minister responsible for the matter the following written question SS 325/2026 vp, signed by Member of Parliament Atte Harjanne (Green League):
How has the Government assessed the risks associated with the development of superintelligent artificial intelligence, and is the Government prepared to promote international regulation that effectively prevents or restricts the development of superintelligent artificial intelligence?
In response to this question, I state the following:
The development of very powerful artificial intelligence is an objective for several research and development actors. The Government takes the risks associated with the development of very powerful artificial intelligence seriously. The rapid development of AI technology and the uncertainty surrounding its future development call for an anticipatory assessment of the possible risks. Artificial intelligence should benefit humanity rather than curtail our opportunities or create unreasonable risks. The development of artificial intelligence must take place with respect for fundamental and human rights. Human beings must retain agency and decision-making power even though the capabilities of artificial intelligence may in the future exceed those of humans.
The Government has not so far carried out an assessment of the risks of developing superintelligent artificial intelligence specifically in the form of, for example, a report, and in the Government's understanding this has not been done within the EU either. Monitoring the topic is nevertheless made easier by the fact that it has long been an identified global subject of discussion, and it is therefore followed by experts in the Government, elsewhere in the public sector, in the research community, in companies and in civil society. Monitoring is complicated by the complexity of the subject, its rapid development, the lack of information about non-public development work, and the fact that this concerns a field of developments and threats of varying form and severity.
The Government's capabilities relating to artificial intelligence have been strengthened. The project for coordinating the Government's artificial intelligence portfolio for 2024–2026 is being implemented in connection with the Digital Agency. The project aims to strengthen the situational picture of the Government's AI-related matters, to coordinate and support Finland's EU-level and international influencing, to create measures for responding to national competence needs, to examine the capacity to make use of artificial intelligence and new technology in developing the education and research system, and to promote the opportunities of the data economy. The artificial intelligence adviser, Doctor of Philosophy Petri Myllymäki, appointed by the Ministry of Transport and Communications in April 2026, supports the Government's work on artificial intelligence. The Government is also investing in the use of artificial intelligence in public administration. As regards measures for monitoring the development of artificial intelligence, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment set up a cooperation group in December 2024 to support the preparation and implementation of the technology policy roadmap. The roadmap also addresses measures for technology monitoring, including strengthening the activities of the technology observatory. Monitoring and foresight activities concerning artificial intelligence in Finland have been carried out by, among others, the VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland and Sitra.
The Government is open to, and seeks to constructively promote, the creation of international regulation on the development of superintelligent artificial intelligence. Any such regulation should strike a balance between the protection of people and of fundamental and human rights on the one hand, and the development of artificial intelligence and the promotion of innovation on the other. The Government notes that artificial intelligence is already now subject to international regulation that facilitates the management of AI-related risks. That regulation does not, however, specifically prevent the development of superintelligent artificial intelligence.
Making use of the opportunities offered by artificial intelligence and the cross-border nature of AI-related risks underline the importance of international cooperation. Finland has actively participated in international cooperation on artificial intelligence, including within the framework of the EU, the UN, the Council of Europe and the OECD, and will continue to seek to influence relevant processes concerning the principles, governance and regulation of artificial intelligence. In 2026, the UN's new artificial intelligence mechanisms were launched: a global dialogue on the governance of artificial intelligence and a global scientific panel on artificial intelligence. The UN's first global dialogue on AI governance was held in Geneva in July 2026. The dialogue provided an important opportunity for global discussion on the development of artificial intelligence and the associated risks. The aim of an independent panel on artificial intelligence is to strengthen science-based decision-making and to provide independent, evidence-based analysis of the impacts and risks of artificial intelligence. According to the panel's first report, the development of artificial intelligence is shifting from passive systems towards agentic systems and, in the long term, self-organising systems that improve themselves are seen as a possible direction of development, while evaluation and control frameworks are not keeping pace with this development.
Within the EU, a regulation on artificial intelligence has entered into force. As a rule, it regulates artificial intelligence systems on the basis of the risks and use cases of artificial intelligence. The AI Regulation is the first comprehensive, binding AI framework with a direct effect on the market. The legislation is based on the EU's value-based and human-centric perspective. As a rule, the regulation does not apply to research, testing and development activities that take place before an AI system is placed on the market or put into use. The regulation as such does not prohibit the development of superintelligent artificial intelligence. It does, however, impose requirements on certain AI systems, such as risk management measures and human oversight of artificial intelligence, which may also facilitate the management of risks associated with superintelligent artificial intelligence. In addition, in July 2026 the European Commission issued a communication on the action plan for cybersecurity and artificial intelligence, proposing several measures to support the development of trustworthy and safe artificial intelligence. The action plan proposes, for example, improving European capabilities for independent evaluations of the safety of advanced AI models before those models are released. The measures also aim to improve authorities' situational picture and information exchange concerning threats related to advanced artificial intelligence.
The world's first framework convention on artificial intelligence, human rights, democracy and the rule of law was adopted in 2024. In the framework convention, the definition of an AI system is deliberately broad and flexible so that it also covers future technological development. Within the scope of its application, the framework convention requires the identification, assessment, prevention and mitigation of risks and adverse impacts associated with AI systems. In addition, the parties are to assess the need for a moratorium, a ban or other appropriate measures with regard to certain uses of AI systems where they consider such uses incompatible with respect for human rights, the functioning of democracy or the rule of law. The framework convention is open for signature and ratification also by states outside the Council of Europe. It has not yet entered into force internationally. The European Union ratified the framework convention on 15 May 2026. The intention is that the framework convention will be implemented in the Member States of the European Union through the EU's artificial intelligence regulation and other applicable Union legislation.
Helsinki, 4 September 2026
Minister of Enterprise Sakari Puisto
Atte had expected the question to go to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who said in March: "And then there's this third category, which I'll mention even at the risk of being thought completely mad. Namely, that AI takes over, and we as humankind end up fighting against it. Not only is the probability of this greater than zero, but its consequences would be significant."
For reasons I don't understand, the question instead went to the Minister of Economic Affairs.
Do this yourself
Vibes are shifting.
If you’re in the US, now’s a great time to encourage other politicians (especially right-wing) to support the Sanders-Casar bill.
But no matter who or where you are, now's a good time to push for an international agreement banning the development of superintelligence. You can get meetings with politicians even if you aren't anyone special; it's a normal part of democracy. You can also transparently communicate your beliefs, even if you think AI could kill us all this decade and say so in those words. They might just believe you.
For guidance on getting and succeeding in meetings, I recommend Leticia García Martínez’s popular posts:
They explain how ControlAI has had so much success informing politicians about AI danger, which was my main inspiration for emailing Atte.
Also, feel free to DM me and ask questions.