rguerreschi

Karma: 33

Rufo Guerreschi is President of the Coalition for a Baruch Plan for AI (CBPAI) and founder of the Trustless Computing Association. He leads an international coalition of 10+ NGOs and 40+ multidisciplinary advisors — from institutions including the NSA, United Nations, WEF, Princeton, and McKinsey — focused on advancing a US-China co-led treaty framework for AI safety, inspired by nuclear non-proliferation models.

His work centers on an under-explored lever in AI governance: mapping specific influence pathways to decision-makers and building the political coalitions needed to make binding international agreements tractable. CBPAI’s recently published 354-page Strategic Memo analyzes these pathways in detail.

Before AI governance, Rufo spent two decades in tech entrepreneurship and digital security, including pioneering the Trustless Computing Paradigm and running the Free and Safe in Cyberspace conference series since 2015. Based between Italy and Switzerland.

rguerreschi 20 Feb 2026 5:36 UTC
−1 points
0
in reply to: Karl Krueger’s comment on: Persuading Trump of a proper US-China-led AI Treaty
If you read the 22 reasons Trump could be persuade you will find many way in whichbhe could be persuaded to do so by some influential people around him, even if for the wrong reason(vanity, etc).
Removing trump is not only unlikely but very very unlikely. If he was, vance would take his place and our plan would be even more valid ( see pope-vance ai connection)
The fact his ratings are low makes him more apr to be persuaded by trust influencers eith a good plan

rguerreschi 18 Feb 2026 17:38 UTC
−1 points
0
in reply to: I.M.J. McInnis’s comment on: Persuading Trump of a proper US-China-led AI Treaty
Malcolm,
You’re concerned whether “odd and not-well-connected” folks can execute “targeted persuasion of fancy, respectable people.” That is a very fair concern.
Here is what I can tell you publicly. (Confidential briefing with specifics available under confidentiality agreement. I will send you a private message meanwhile)
I was raised quite wealthy in Italy, competed as an Italian national golf champion (2nd place), and as a young man spent years in Italy’s Emerald Coast (20 years of summers) and Miami Beach (7 years) social circles—I grew up with the very wealthy. I understand how to navigate elite spaces because I was raised in them. Combined with 15 years building technical credibility, this enables exactly the targeted persuasion you’re questioning.
The empirical proof: Our October 2025 US Persuasion Tour delivered 85+ meetings (projected 15-20): 23 AI lab policy officials at OpenAI/Anthropic/DeepMind, 8 national security contacts, 4 intelligence community officials. Direct pathways to 2 of 10 primary target influencers.
15-year track record:
- Trustless Computing Association: 9 years building deep CIA (MACH37 accelerator incubation), NSA (former officials now advisors), DoD, State Department relationships
- Free and Safe in Cyberspace: 11 conferences, 3 continents, 130+ speakers including First US Cyber Coordinator, UN Special Rapporteur, European Data Protection Supervisor, Jaan Tallinn (our later funder). All aggregated around my vision for a Trustless Computing Certification Body.
- Coalition: 40+ advisors from UN/NSA/WEF/Yale/Princeton, 10 NGO partners, 356-page Strategic Memo
Strategic assets: Mar-a-Lago area connections through 6 years Miami residence + personal relationships in Palm Beach; Vatican network (3 years with the secretary fo the main Vartican AI organization, organizing April-June Rome meetings); AI lab access (direct relation with the global head of policy at one of the top 3 lab, 25+ frontier lab officials).
Our Strategic Memo (356 pages) contains 170+ pages of psychological profiling—667+ sources per target. With $200-400K, we hire 2 operators to deploy this at scale.
We only need 2 key influencers (Hassabis/Amodei) to then use our memo to convince the others.
Constraint isn’t access—it’s operational capacity. We’ve proven we open doors; need people to execute.
Best, Rufo

rguerreschi 18 Feb 2026 14:23 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Karl Krueger’s comment on: Persuading Trump of a proper US-China-led AI Treaty
I understand your skepticism. But our deep analysis reveals that there are other incentives and conditions that can work on Trump, beyond the pecuniary. Here are 22 reasons why we believe Trump can be persuaded:
https://www.cbpai.org/blog-1/twenty-reasons-why-trump-could-be-persuaded-to-co-lead-a-bold-global-ai-treaty-with-xi

rguerreschi 17 Feb 2026 18:39 UTC
9 points
2
in reply to: Karl Krueger’s comment on: Persuading Trump of a proper US-China-led AI Treaty
As you well know, removing Trump from office will be very very unlikely.
Like it or not our future is in his hands.
Fortunately, his own personal interests, and that of key potential influencers of Trump’s AI policy, align with the possibility of him co-leading a bold, timely and proper AI treaty.
It is very hard to face, but if we don’t, we can’t act efficiently.

PS: this message was edited to remove some unnecessary aggressive comments

rguerreschi 16 Oct 2024 23:24 UTC
10 points
10
in reply to: Max Tegmark’s comment on: The Hopium Wars: the AGI Entente Delusion
The only winning move is “agreement”, not “not to play”. There is quite some difference.

But how to find an agreeement when so many parties are involved? Treaty-making has been failing miserably for nuclear and climate. So we need a much better treaty-making, perhaps that fo the open intergovernmental constituent assembly?

rguerreschi 1 Jun 2024 7:48 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Orpheus16’s comment on: We might be dropping the ball on Autonomous Replication and Adaptation.
We need national security people across the world to be speaking publicly about this, otherwise the general discussion on threaats and risks of AI remains gravely incomplete and bias

rguerreschi 17 Apr 2024 11:06 UTC
4 points
−2
in reply to: Orpheus16’s comment on: Paul Christiano named as US AI Safety Institute Head of AI Safety
Good insights! He has rhe right knowledge and dedication. Let’s hope he can grow into an Oppenheimer of AI, and that they’ll let him contribute on AI policy more than they let Oppenheimer on nuclear (see how his work on the 1946 Acheson–Lilienthal Report for international control of AI was then driven to nothing as it was taken up into the Baruch Plan)