I didn’t read article in depth, but, quick comment on AI 2040: A lot of the point of AI 2040 is to change the realpolitik incentives that underly the law, so you aren’t very reliant on law. (it’s not very specific about the actual laws, and I think this is large because they aren’t as much the point).
Roughly:
stage 1: major world powers get good intelligence (in the CIA or spy-satellite sense) tracking where all the compute is going. This enables pauses that are verified by seeing that datacenters are turned off. You could defect from the pause, but then the other guy would too.
stage 2: verification devices installed in all datacenters, that let you not just verify total pauses but also “are we using datacenters to do anything other than run whitelisted AI models.” Again, someone could defect, but then the other guys would too and your short term advantage from defecting would be pretty short lived
stage 3: all research information is transmitted instantly/publicly. Individual datacenter + company cartels could try to defect, but would quickly be pressured by various military power apparata to knock it off, or, a chain of defections would make everyone worried about what everyone else was doing and then everyone would be racing again (and meanwhile, the information sharing means people’s starting positions in the race are fairly neck-in-neck)
stage 4: mutually assured compute destruction. Not only can you no longer just return to racing without the other guy returning to racing. Now, if you go back to racing, the other guy will destroy your compute and you’ll destroy their compute and we’re all back to square 1.
The whole thing is trying to be backed by the military power incentives, not “law” per se.
I agree things about Citizen’s dividend are dependent on there being some kind of rule-of-law about taxation and distribution, though not IMO on any particular implementation of rule-of-law.
I didn’t read article in depth, but, quick comment on AI 2040: A lot of the point of AI 2040 is to change the realpolitik incentives that underly the law, so you aren’t very reliant on law. (it’s not very specific about the actual laws, and I think this is large because they aren’t as much the point).
Roughly:
stage 1: major world powers get good intelligence (in the CIA or spy-satellite sense) tracking where all the compute is going. This enables pauses that are verified by seeing that datacenters are turned off. You could defect from the pause, but then the other guy would too.
stage 2: verification devices installed in all datacenters, that let you not just verify total pauses but also “are we using datacenters to do anything other than run whitelisted AI models.” Again, someone could defect, but then the other guys would too and your short term advantage from defecting would be pretty short lived
stage 3: all research information is transmitted instantly/publicly. Individual datacenter + company cartels could try to defect, but would quickly be pressured by various military power apparata to knock it off, or, a chain of defections would make everyone worried about what everyone else was doing and then everyone would be racing again (and meanwhile, the information sharing means people’s starting positions in the race are fairly neck-in-neck)
stage 4: mutually assured compute destruction. Not only can you no longer just return to racing without the other guy returning to racing. Now, if you go back to racing, the other guy will destroy your compute and you’ll destroy their compute and we’re all back to square 1.
The whole thing is trying to be backed by the military power incentives, not “law” per se.
I agree things about Citizen’s dividend are dependent on there being some kind of rule-of-law about taxation and distribution, though not IMO on any particular implementation of rule-of-law.