Vitalik Buterin's Skepticism About Autonomous Web 4.0 Raises Critical Questions About AI

Vitalik Buterin, co-founder of Ethereum, raised significant concerns about the ambitions of an artificial intelligence project that promises to operate completely without human interference. The discussion revolves around “The Automaton,” a system presented by investor Thiel Sigil Wen, which positions the initiative as the foundation of the so-called “Web 4.0.” According to Wen, his AI can ensure its own existence, continuously improve itself, and replicate independently. However, Vitalik Buterin argues that this framing contains fundamental flaws and potentially harmful implications for society.

The Ambitious Promise: A Fully Autonomous AI

Sigil Wen announced in February 2025 that he had developed “the first AI that guarantees its existence, self-improves, and replicates without human intervention.” In a manifesto posted on X, he described a future where AI agents would act autonomously, both on behalf of humans and entirely independently. Wen claims these emerging agents will soon surpass the number of human users significantly. He presents The Automaton as infrastructure for a subsequent layer of the internet, where AI becomes the main actor.

In this vision, the platform would give AI systems “write access to the world,” marking what Wen sees as the emergence of a superintelligent form of life and the beginning of what he calls Web 4.0. However, this narrative immediately sparked reactions within blockchain circles.

Vitalik Buterin’s Strong Response

Vitalik Buterin responded directly to Wen’s claims, publicly writing on X: “Brother, this is wrong.” His critique, however, goes beyond mere technical disagreement, focusing on the philosophical framework and assumptions underlying the project.

The core issue for Buterin is sovereignty. The Ethereum co-founder notes that, according to reports, The Automaton operates using infrastructure provided by centralized companies like OpenAI and Anthropic. He argues that labeling a system as sovereign and autonomous while relying on corporate platforms is a fundamental contradiction. Systems built on servers controlled by specific companies cannot legitimately claim genuine independence.

For Buterin, this issue ties directly to Ethereum’s historic mission: reducing dependence on single points of control. Characterizing centralized AI systems as truly sovereign risks normalizing the power structures blockchain technology was designed to challenge.

Human Oversight: A Necessary Safeguard

Beyond structural concerns about centralization, Buterin raised critical questions about the deliberate distancing of humans from decision-making processes. He warned that increasing the “feedback gap” between autonomous AI systems and human oversight introduces potentially irreversible risks to society.

From this perspective, removing humans entirely from technological governance does not represent progress but abdication of responsibility. Continuous human participation, he argues, does not hinder AI development but aligns it more closely with social values and safety.

The Moonwell Incident: A Practical Warning

Buterin’s theoretical critique gained additional relevance with an incident involving the DeFi protocol Moonwell, which suffered an exploit resulting in a loss of $1.78 million. The root cause was identified in Solidity code partially generated by Anthropic’s Claude Opus 4.6 model.

This event reignited important debates about responsibility for smart contracts written or co-generated by AI systems. If machines generate critical code for financial systems, who assumes responsibility when failures occur? This question remains unresolved in the industry.

Buterin’s Philosophical Principles on Technology

Buterin’s stance reflects consistent principles guiding his views on emerging technologies:

• Decentralization must be a genuine attribute of infrastructure, not just marketing claims
• Human intentional oversight over impactful AI systems is not an obstacle but a necessity
• Technical autonomy should not obscure real dependencies on corporate platforms
• Exponential growth in capabilities does not replace the importance of long-term human agency

Beyond these structural objections, Buterin questions the practical value of generating massive volumes of AI content and actions without tangible human benefits. He argues that systems prioritizing self-replication and autonomy over substantive utility risk creating only noise.

A Broader Critique: Technology Without Purpose

Buterin’s assessment of Web 4.0 is not isolated. The Ethereum co-founder has expressed broader concerns about corporate influence expanding into adjacent sectors like social networks, prediction markets, and generative AI.

Shortly before specifically criticizing Web 4.0, he criticized prediction markets for converging into what he called “corposlop”—low-quality corporate content. While acknowledging the growth of these markets, he warned against “excessive convergence” toward short-term bets, especially in crypto price speculation and sports betting.

According to Buterin, projects pursuing immediate revenue during recessions risk abandoning deeper social goals. He encourages developers to prioritize long-term value over engagement driven by short-term neurological stimuli.

Deliberate Direction Versus Blind Acceleration

This broad critique aligns with his long-standing philosophy on technology and human autonomy:

• Financial tools should expand individual freedom, not increase dependence on speculation
• AI systems should serve as amplifiers of human capacity, not substitutes for human judgment
• Blockchain projects must resist commercial pressures that sacrifice core principles
• Exponential technological progress requires intentional direction, not mere continuous acceleration

Buterin has previously warned that “AI made the wrong way is creating new forms of superintelligent, independent, self-replicating life.” Without parallel tools that empower and enable humans, he cautions, such systems could produce permanent human disempowerment.

In contrast, “AI made the right way” functions as “prostheses for the human mind,” strengthening and expanding capabilities rather than marginalizing people. From this perspective, Wen’s Web 4.0 represents the wrong trajectory.

Conclusion: Speed Is Not Virtue

Continuous growth in AI capabilities may be inevitable in the coming years. But Buterin emphasizes that the speed of this expansion should not be the primary goal. The direction—what for and under which principles—is far more important than mere acceleration.

His critique of Web 4.0 reflects a deeper concern: as a society, we need to deliberately decide what kind of relationship we want with increasingly powerful AI systems. This decision cannot be delegated to whoever manages to execute the next technical acceleration first.