Description du poste
TL;DR: There seems to be a general lack of awareness of how tractable/feasible verification mechanisms for international AI governance agreements are, and correcting this would probably make pacing proposals more politically feasible.
The Skeptic’s Case for VerificationThe most common objection I see to proposals for pacing (or halting) frontier AI development (in the interest of mitigating the catastrophic and existential risk posed by not doing so) is that it’s pointless; China will continue due to the economic and military advantages of doing so, surpass us in the “AI race”, and either gain geopolitical dominance or kill us all anyway. As Ted Cruz put it, “If there are going to be killer robots, I would rather they be American killer robots, rather than Chinese killer robots.” The answer is to seek an international agreement with China (and everyone else) for us to all pace frontier development.
The most common objection I see to this proposal is that it’s pointless; they will covertly defect, surpass us in the “AI race”, and either gain geopolitical dominance or kill us all anyway. The answer is to develop the means to verify compliance. Just as DARPA’s Project Vela was established to develop means to verify compliance with the 1963 Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and the International Monitoring System was developed to verify compliance with the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, so too may we be able to develop means to verify compliance with the global pacing of AI progress.
The most common objection I see to this proposal is that it’s pointless; given how many advanced AI chips are already scattered throughout the world, verifying that AI research isn’t continuing anywhere is either totally infeasible or would require such intrusive/costly surveillance and restrictions that no one would ever agree to it. Some secret lab would continue on, surpass us in the “AI race”, and either gain geopolitical dominance or kill us all anyway.
The answer is that i