Max Tegmark advocates for a binding moratorium on superintelligence until robust safety measures and broad societal consensus are achieved, warning that uncontrolled development risks human extinction—comparing it to creating a new species without safeguards. He supports a licensing model akin to nuclear or aviation regulation, emphasizing proactive oversight. In contrast, Dean Ball opposes a ban, arguing that 'superintelligence' is poorly defined and that innovation thrives through experimentation. He cautions against regulatory overreach, which could entrench monopolies or trigger institutional decay, and maintains a p(doom) below 1%. Both agree on the need for adaptive, risk-based regulation—especially for high-stakes applications like biosecurity—but differ sharply on timelines, definitions, and the feasibility of international coordination. The debate underscores a fundamental tension: whether to regulate based on precaution or resilience, with profound implications for the future of AI governance.