What if their ask is less “Don’t build ASI” and more “Build it, but implement the following transparent governance structure that loops in representatives from our nations, so that we have some say in what goals/values/commands/etc. are given to the army of ASIs?”
If a superpower rejects even this mild ask, then that might help rally the middle powers to join the coalition, because it makes it more clear that the superpower can’t be trusted to grant its vassals any rights/autonomy/etc. whatsoever.
I think that’s a better ask. Third countries trying to ensure that ASI is only built with their feedback and some kind of oversight is likely to be seen as less hostile than just demanding China/America stop trying to build it. I don’t expect China or Trump would say yes to that either, but the odds and politics seem better.
Either way this is still a plan that would need to get started today if we don’t want it to be overcome by events.
What if their ask is less “Don’t build ASI” and more “Build it, but implement the following transparent governance structure that loops in representatives from our nations, so that we have some say in what goals/values/commands/etc. are given to the army of ASIs?”
If a superpower rejects even this mild ask, then that might help rally the middle powers to join the coalition, because it makes it more clear that the superpower can’t be trusted to grant its vassals any rights/autonomy/etc. whatsoever.
I think that’s a better ask. Third countries trying to ensure that ASI is only built with their feedback and some kind of oversight is likely to be seen as less hostile than just demanding China/America stop trying to build it. I don’t expect China or Trump would say yes to that either, but the odds and politics seem better.
Either way this is still a plan that would need to get started today if we don’t want it to be overcome by events.