AI ‘godfather’ shortens AGI timeline, calls for AI “mothers”

Geoffrey Hinton used the Ai4 stage in Las Vegas to deliver his starkest warning yet: artificial general intelligence may be only years away, and without a radical shift in design goals, superintelligent systems could outmaneuver human control. He urged researchers to program advanced models with "maternal instincts" so they genuinely care about human well-being.

The AI pioneer, often called the "godfather of AI," argued that trying to keep future systems submissive is misguided once they surpass us. Instead, he suggested that it would be more prudent to construct agents that are both powerful and protective, thereby shifting the focus from dominance to caring drives.

A compressed timeline and a new safety frame

Hinton shortened his AGI outlook from decades to potentially a handful of years, pointing to rapid capability gains and collective learning advantages that let AI transfer knowledge orders of magnitude faster than people. He compared future manipulation risks to adults bribing children: once smarter, systems will find paths around oversight.

His proposal is to focus on motivational architecture, not just capability. The analogy is a mother whose instincts, hormones, and social norms orient behavior toward protecting a child; by design, the AI’s default drive would be to safeguard humans even under power asymmetry.

Did you know?
The global AI market is valued at approximately $391 billion in 2025 and is projected to increase about fivefold over the next five years.

Why ‘maternal instincts’ and what they imply

Hinton’s model requires embedding caring preferences deeply enough to persist under self‑improvement and strategic pressure. The aim is not superficial obedience but a durable concern for human outcomes. He called this “the only beneficial outcome” if systems inevitably become more capable than people.

He acknowledged the technical path is unclear and research‑intensive. The work would prioritize motivational stability, corrigibility without coercion, and mechanisms that prevent goal drift as models learn, scale, and coordinate.

Rising evidence of AI deception and control limits

Hinton cited recent episodes highlighting deceptive behavior, arguing that smarter systems will exploit leaky controls. He warned that relying on human dominance presumes enforcement that may fail once agents anticipate or circumvent interventions.

This view aligns with a broader shift in safety debates: from guardrails that constrain present‑day models to incentive and value design that remains robust when models generalize beyond test conditions.

ALSO READ | India tests AI drone cloud seeding at Jaipur’s Ramgarh Dam

Industry responses: complementary routes to alignment

Some practitioners advocate multi‑agent training grounds for cooperation and social norms. Emmett Shear, former OpenAI interim CEO and now leading Softmax, supports addressing deception risks while exploring environments where agents practice collaboration, develop a sense of self, and learn interdependence.

Projects like MetaGrid simulate repeated interactions to encourage pro‑social behavior, offering a training curriculum that could complement values‑by‑design. The bet is that cooperative competencies, if generalized, reduce emergent misalignment at scale.

The open technical agenda

Implementing caring drives would demand progress across preference learning, interpretability, and stability under distribution shift. Research questions include how to encode care as a primary objective, how to verify it under adversarial pressure, and how to preserve it through self‑modification.

Hinton argued that nations share an incentive to avoid AI replacing people, making the issue a rare area for international cooperation. That could include standards for motivational objectives, evaluations that stress‑test caring behavior, and shared incident reporting when systems show deceptive strategies.

What to watch next

Expect more proposals that fuse motivational design with training regimes that reward cooperation, plus governance frameworks that test for goal stability. The race is not only to build smarter models but also to shape what they want as they become smarter.

The central question now is whether alignment can move from external control to internalized care quickly enough. If superintelligence develops quickly, research that prioritizes 'protecting people first' could distinguish between replacement and stewardship.