Does your agreement stem from thinking defense could hold off offense? I ask because I’m curious what alternatives to AI hegemony might exist. I agree that an AI hegemon would likely be problematic, but if offense can beat defense, I wonder what alternatives might be realistic (apologies if you’ve addressed this elsewhere)
I want there to be international coordination to govern/regulate/etc. AGI development. This is, in some sense, “one hegemon” but only in about the same sense that the UN Security Council is one hegemon, i.e. not in the really dangerous sense.
I think there’s a way to do this that’s reasonably likely to work even if offense generally beats defense (which I think it does, in the relevant sense, for AI-related stuff.)
My background (albeit limited as an undergrad) is in political science, and my field of study is one reason I got interested in AI to begin with, back in Feburary of 2022. I don’t know what the actual feasibility is for an international AGI treaty with “teeth”, and I’ll tell you why: the UN Security Council.
As it currently exists, the UN Security Council has permanent members: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. All five countries have a permanent veto as granted to them by the 1945 founding UN Charter.
China and the US are the two major global superpowers of the 21st century, and each are currently deadlocked in the race to reach AGI; to borrow a speedrunning term, any%. While it is possible in theory for the US and China to have a bilateral Frontier AI treaty, similar to how nuclear powers have the NPT, and the US and Russia have their own armaments accords, AGI is a completely different story.
It’s a common trope in the UN for a country on the UNSC to exercise its right to a permanent veto on any resolution brought to it that the nation deems a threat to its sovereignty, or that of its allies. Russia has used it to prevent key sanctions from the Ukraine war at the UNGA, and the US uses it to protect its allies from various resolutions, often brought up by countries in the Global South who make up most seats in the UNGA.
Unless the Security Council is drastically reformed, removing a permanent veto from the P5 and putting a rotating veto from a Global South country, an internationally binding AGI treaty is far from happening.
I do see, however, unique bilateral accords between various Middle Powers on AI, such as Canada and the European Union. Do you agree?
I might do my next LessWrong post about Global Affairs and AI, either in relation to AI 2027 or just my own unique take on the matter. We’ll see. I need to curate some reliable news clippings and studies.
Does your agreement stem from thinking defense could hold off offense? I ask because I’m curious what alternatives to AI hegemony might exist. I agree that an AI hegemon would likely be problematic, but if offense can beat defense, I wonder what alternatives might be realistic (apologies if you’ve addressed this elsewhere)
I want there to be international coordination to govern/regulate/etc. AGI development. This is, in some sense, “one hegemon” but only in about the same sense that the UN Security Council is one hegemon, i.e. not in the really dangerous sense.
I think there’s a way to do this that’s reasonably likely to work even if offense generally beats defense (which I think it does, in the relevant sense, for AI-related stuff.)
Hi Daniel.
My background (albeit limited as an undergrad) is in political science, and my field of study is one reason I got interested in AI to begin with, back in Feburary of 2022. I don’t know what the actual feasibility is for an international AGI treaty with “teeth”, and I’ll tell you why: the UN Security Council.
As it currently exists, the UN Security Council has permanent members: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. All five countries have a permanent veto as granted to them by the 1945 founding UN Charter.
China and the US are the two major global superpowers of the 21st century, and each are currently deadlocked in the race to reach AGI; to borrow a speedrunning term, any%. While it is possible in theory for the US and China to have a bilateral Frontier AI treaty, similar to how nuclear powers have the NPT, and the US and Russia have their own armaments accords, AGI is a completely different story.
It’s a common trope in the UN for a country on the UNSC to exercise its right to a permanent veto on any resolution brought to it that the nation deems a threat to its sovereignty, or that of its allies. Russia has used it to prevent key sanctions from the Ukraine war at the UNGA, and the US uses it to protect its allies from various resolutions, often brought up by countries in the Global South who make up most seats in the UNGA.
Unless the Security Council is drastically reformed, removing a permanent veto from the P5 and putting a rotating veto from a Global South country, an internationally binding AGI treaty is far from happening.
I do see, however, unique bilateral accords between various Middle Powers on AI, such as Canada and the European Union. Do you agree?
I might do my next LessWrong post about Global Affairs and AI, either in relation to AI 2027 or just my own unique take on the matter. We’ll see. I need to curate some reliable news clippings and studies.