Thanks for all this! On international cooperation: I’m not sure exactly what kinds of principles you’re thinking of—my first thoughts go to the UN Governing AI For Humanity Principles. If it’s something like that, I’d say that they are outside the scope of the proposal above for now. However, the Standard as imagined here does aim to meaningfully support international cooperation, despite appealing to things that countries should do out of self interest: (i) The Standard itself works as a high-level strategy for an international governance organisation. For example, an international governing body could suggest or prescribe some minimal objectives across the 3 goals or 9 subgoals for nations to achieve by a given time. (ii) Without an international governance org, the Standard could make collaboration easier if endorsed by multiple states. Those states would have common language and objectives that would be more likely to overlap. (iii) Even if only one nation endorses the standard, or even a city or a state, the standard includes international collaboration / cooperation as one of the possible actions under “preventing bad actors.” This is in recognition of the fact that other people’s TAI will impact your security. So endorsing the Standard should encourage an internationally-minded approach.
These could lead to the formulation of principles later. Not entirely sure if that addresses your point. Interested to hear more!
On alignment and and societal resilience: Thanks! These are great points, I’ll definitely look into expanding on these areas as you suggest. I’m leaning away from the more controversial mitigations like AI propaganda; the standard aims to avoid controversiality where possible, and just focus on mitigations that are likely to be widely accepted as viable in principle (even if there are diverging opinions on specific details of implementation).
Thanks for all this!
On international cooperation: I’m not sure exactly what kinds of principles you’re thinking of—my first thoughts go to the UN Governing AI For Humanity Principles. If it’s something like that, I’d say that they are outside the scope of the proposal above for now. However, the Standard as imagined here does aim to meaningfully support international cooperation, despite appealing to things that countries should do out of self interest:
(i) The Standard itself works as a high-level strategy for an international governance organisation. For example, an international governing body could suggest or prescribe some minimal objectives across the 3 goals or 9 subgoals for nations to achieve by a given time.
(ii) Without an international governance org, the Standard could make collaboration easier if endorsed by multiple states. Those states would have common language and objectives that would be more likely to overlap.
(iii) Even if only one nation endorses the standard, or even a city or a state, the standard includes international collaboration / cooperation as one of the possible actions under “preventing bad actors.” This is in recognition of the fact that other people’s TAI will impact your security. So endorsing the Standard should encourage an internationally-minded approach.
These could lead to the formulation of principles later. Not entirely sure if that addresses your point. Interested to hear more!
On alignment and and societal resilience: Thanks! These are great points, I’ll definitely look into expanding on these areas as you suggest. I’m leaning away from the more controversial mitigations like AI propaganda; the standard aims to avoid controversiality where possible, and just focus on mitigations that are likely to be widely accepted as viable in principle (even if there are diverging opinions on specific details of implementation).