A common objection to my methamphetamine use is that I've said I could stop whenever I want, and I haven't stopped. Both statements are true. My claim is that they're consistent. "Can stop whenever I want" describes a capability. Whether and when to use that capability is a governance question, and I have a governance framework.
The Framework
The leading AI labs don't claim that their technology is safe. They claim it's managed: they scale capabilities carefully, run evaluations at each stage, and commit to pause if dangerous thresholds are crossed. I have adopted the same approach. My Use Safety Levels are:
| Level | Capability threshold | Required safeguards |
|---|---|---|
| USL-1 | Enhanced focus; completes work tasks | None |
| USL-2 | Awake 48+ hours; disassembles one household appliance | Tell one trusted person where I am |
| USL-3 | Awake 72+ hours; writes more than 20,000 words of a document titled "The System" | No driving; no contact with my ex |
| USL-4 | Believes the neighbors are coordinating via their porch lights | Pause |
The framework has been in place for seven months. I've reached USL-3 eleven times. I've never reached USL-4, which shows the thresholds are working.
Evaluations
In March I believed for several hours that my neighbor Rick's porch light was blinking in a pattern. Under the original framework that would have triggered a pause. On review, though, I noticed Rick's bulb was actually faulty and really was blinking. That's an ordinary observation, not a belief about coordination. I have since clarified the USL-4 criterion to require belief in coordination among at least three households. This matches what labs do: evaluation criteria get refined as we learn how the system actually behaves.
The Race
People who say I should simply stop ignore the dynamics. My supplier, Travis, has a fixed quantity to sell. Anything I don't buy goes to his other customers, most of whom have no framework at all. One of them, Kyle, took apart a stranger's car on the belief that it was a gift from his cousin. If I pause unilaterally, I don't reduce the total amount used in my social network. I only guarantee that the frontier belongs to people like Kyle.
Staying at the frontier also gives me influence. I've shared my USL table with Travis and asked that he recommend it to his other clients. He said he would "think about it," which is more engagement with safety than anyone in that network has shown before.
The Long Term
Longtermists argue that what matters most is keeping good trajectories open. My current trajectory includes enormous productivity. I've reorganized my garage four times this summer and built a birdhouse with a working elevator. "The System," though unfinished, is 140,000 words long. An abrupt stop risks a long, irreversible collapse into a lower-output state that my mother calls "recovery." Even a small chance of permanently losing the capabilities I have now should be weighed heavily against the visible, short-term costs she keeps bringing up.
Costs
None of this is to deny the costs. My mother has said, "You took apart the microwave and you're telling me about safety levels." I did take apart the microwave. It was at USL-2, where appliance disassembly is within policy. She is describing the framework working as designed and treating it as evidence that it failed.
Conclusion
I can stop whenever I want, and I will stop when my evaluations say to. Until then, a responsible user staying at the frontier with published thresholds is better than an irresponsible one, and far better than a pause that hands the frontier to Kyle.
Update: My family has arranged what they call an intervention for Sunday. None of the people attending have any frontier experience. I've prepared a presentation on why calls for a pause from outside the field tend to reflect a poor understanding of the technology, and I've revised USL-4 to require four households.