Intelligence Sequencing and the Path-Dependence of Intelligence Evolution: AGI-First vs. DCI-First as Irreversible Attractors

Intelligence development follows irreversible paths: Once societies commit to either centralized AGI or decentralized collective intelligence (DCI) systems, the paper argues that switching between these approaches becomes structurally impossible due to "feedback loops and resource lock-in"—meaning early choices about how to develop AI systems may permanently constrain future options.

The order of development matters more than alignment alone: Traditional AI safety focuses on controlling AGI after it emerges, but this paper contends that the sequence in which different types of intelligence systems develop is more foundational to long-term outcomes than post-hoc alignment efforts, suggesting prevention through early architectural choices is critical.

Centralized AGI-first development may lock in existential risks: If centralized AGI systems dominate before decentralized alternatives mature, the paper warns this creates "hierarchical monopolization" that becomes self-reinforcing and difficult to reverse, potentially concentrating power in ways that increase existential risk.

Decentralized systems offer a stabilizing alternative: The paper suggests that if decentralized collective intelligence reaches critical mass first, intelligence systems could stabilize around "cooperative equilibrium" rather than hierarchical control, offering a structurally different risk profile.

Early structural choices constrain all future development: Drawing parallels to physics, the paper argues that how we initially structure intelligence systems acts like a "renormalization"—fundamentally reshaping what becomes possible later, making present-day decisions about centralization vs. decentralization consequential for decades or longer.