Quantum Event Horizon: Addressing the Quantum-AI Control Problem through Quantum-Resistant Constitutional AI

What happens when AI becomes not just superintelligent, but quantum-superintelligent? QAI agents with both classical and quantum capabilities? How do we ensure we remain in control?

This is the central question of my new article, where I introduce the concept of the Quantum Event Horizon to frame the urgency of the QAI control problem. As we near this point of no return, the risk of losing control to misaligned systems—machines taking over or seeing them weaponized—becomes acute.

Simple guardrails are not enough. The solution must be architectural. I propose a new paradigm: Quantum-Resistant Constitutional AI, a method for engineering our core values into the foundation of QAI itself. This is a crucial discussion for policymakers, researchers, builders, and industry leaders.

Navigating the Quantum Event Horizon

This paper addresses the impending control problem posed by the synthesis of quantum computing and artificial intelligence (QAI). It posits that the emergence of potentially superintelligent QAI agents creates a governance challenge that is fundamentally different from and more acute than those posed by classical AI. Traditional solutions focused on technical alignment are necessary but insufficient for the novel risks and capabilities of QAI. The central thesis is that navigating this challenge requires a paradigm shift from reactive oversight to proactive, upfront constitutional design.

The core of the argument is framed by the concept of the ‘Quantum Event Horizon’—a metaphorical boundary beyond which the behavior, development, and societal impact of QAI become computationally opaque and practically impossible to predict or control using conventional methods. Drawing on the Collingridge dilemma and the Copenhagen interpretation, this concept highlights the risk of a "point of no return," where technological lock-in, spurred by a "ChatGPT moment" for quantum, could cement irreversible geopolitical realities, empower techno-authoritarianism, and present an unmanageable control problem (the risk of machines taking over). Confronting this requires a new philosophy for governing non-human intelligence.