US-China perspectives on extreme AI risks and global governance
0
๐ค
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Provides a comprehensive analysis of the US and China's perspectives on the extreme risks posed by advanced AI systems and the global governance challenges that arise.
- Explores the similarities and differences in how the two superpowers view and approach the management of these risks.
- Offers insights into the potential implications for international cooperation and the development of effective AI governance frameworks.
Plain English Explanation
The paper examines the views of the United States and China on the extreme risks associated with highly advanced artificial intelligence (AI) systems and the global governance challenges that arise from these risks. It looks at the similarities and differences in how the two superpowers perceive and aim to address the management of these risks.
The researchers found that both the US and China recognize the potential for catastrophic consequences if powerful AI systems are not developed and deployed responsibly. However, there are some key differences in their approaches. For example, the US tends to focus more on the existential threat of a superintelligent AI system, while China is more concerned about the risks of AI-powered autonomous weapons and their implications for geopolitical stability.
The paper also explores the broader implications of these differing perspectives for international cooperation and the development of effective governance frameworks to ensure the safe and beneficial development of transformative AI technologies. Understanding these nuances is crucial as the world grapples with the challenges posed by the rapid progress in AI capabilities.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents a comparative analysis of the US and China's perspectives on the extreme risks posed by advanced AI systems and the resulting global governance challenges. The researchers conducted a comprehensive review of policy documents, academic literature, and media reports from both countries to identify the key similarities and differences in their views and approaches.
The study found that both the US and China recognize the potential for catastrophic consequences if powerful AI systems are not developed and deployed responsibly. However, they tend to prioritize different types of risks. The US is more focused on the existential threat of a superintelligent AI system that could exceed human control, while China is more concerned about the risks of AI-powered autonomous weapons and their implications for geopolitical stability.
The paper also examines how these differing perspectives shape the two countries' policy priorities and approaches to AI governance. For example, the US tends to emphasize the importance of technical safety measures and the need for international cooperation, while China places greater emphasis on national security considerations and the potential for AI to enhance its global influence.
The researchers argue that understanding these nuances is crucial as the world grapples with the challenges posed by the rapid progress in AI capabilities. Effective global governance of transformative AI will require bridging these divergent perspectives and finding common ground to ensure the safe and beneficial development of these technologies.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a well-researched and balanced analysis of the US and China's perspectives on extreme AI risks and global governance. The authors demonstrate a nuanced understanding of the complex geopolitical and technical factors at play, and they offer valuable insights into the potential implications for international cooperation and the development of effective AI governance frameworks.
One potential limitation of the study is that it relies heavily on publicly available policy documents and media reports, which may not always capture the full depth and complexity of the countries' internal deliberations and decision-making processes. Additionally, the rapidly evolving nature of AI technology and its global impacts means that some of the insights and recommendations in the paper may require periodic updates to remain relevant.
Nevertheless, the paper makes a compelling case for the importance of bridging the US and China's differing perspectives on AI risks and governance. It highlights the need for a more coordinated and comprehensive approach to ensure the safe and beneficial development of transformative AI technologies, which have the potential to shape the future of humanity.
Conclusion
The paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the US and China's perspectives on the extreme risks posed by advanced AI systems and the global governance challenges that arise. It highlights the key similarities and differences in how the two superpowers view and approach the management of these risks, offering valuable insights into the potential implications for international cooperation and the development of effective AI governance frameworks.
The research underscores the critical importance of understanding these nuances as the world grapples with the challenges posed by the rapid progress in AI capabilities. Effective global governance of transformative AI will require bridging the divergent perspectives of the US and China, as well as other key stakeholders, to ensure the safe and beneficial development of these technologies for the benefit of humanity as a whole.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
๐ค
0
US-China perspectives on extreme AI risks and global governance
Akash Wasil, Tim Durgin
The United States and China will play an important role in navigating safety and security challenges relating to advanced artificial intelligence. We sought to better understand how experts in each country describe safety and security threats from advanced artificial intelligence, extreme risks from AI, and the potential for international cooperation. Specifically, we compiled publicly-available statements from major technical and policy leaders in both the United States and China. We focused our analysis on advanced forms of artificial intelligence, such as artificial general intelligence (AGI), that may have the most significant impacts on national and global security. Experts in both countries expressed concern about risks from AGI, risks from intelligence explosions, and risks from AI systems that escape human control. Both countries have also launched early efforts designed to promote international cooperation around safety standards and risk management practices. Notably, our findings only reflect information from publicly available sources. Nonetheless, our findings can inform policymakers and researchers about the state of AI discourse in the US and China. We hope such work can contribute to policy discussions around advanced AI, its global security threats, and potential international dialogues or agreements to mitigate such threats.
Read more7/25/2024
๐ค
0
Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress
Yoshua Bengio, Geoffrey Hinton, Andrew Yao, Dawn Song, Pieter Abbeel, Trevor Darrell, Yuval Noah Harari, Ya-Qin Zhang, Lan Xue, Shai Shalev-Shwartz, Gillian Hadfield, Jeff Clune, Tegan Maharaj, Frank Hutter, At{i}l{i}m Gunec{s} Baydin, Sheila McIlraith, Qiqi Gao, Ashwin Acharya, David Krueger, Anca Dragan, Philip Torr, Stuart Russell, Daniel Kahneman, Jan Brauner, Soren Mindermann
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is progressing rapidly, and companies are shifting their focus to developing generalist AI systems that can autonomously act and pursue goals. Increases in capabilities and autonomy may soon massively amplify AI's impact, with risks that include large-scale social harms, malicious uses, and an irreversible loss of human control over autonomous AI systems. Although researchers have warned of extreme risks from AI, there is a lack of consensus about how exactly such risks arise, and how to manage them. Society's response, despite promising first steps, is incommensurate with the possibility of rapid, transformative progress that is expected by many experts. AI safety research is lagging. Present governance initiatives lack the mechanisms and institutions to prevent misuse and recklessness, and barely address autonomous systems. In this short consensus paper, we describe extreme risks from upcoming, advanced AI systems. Drawing on lessons learned from other safety-critical technologies, we then outline a comprehensive plan combining technical research and development with proactive, adaptive governance mechanisms for a more commensurate preparation.
Read more5/24/2024
๐งช
0
Securing the Future of GenAI: Policy and Technology
Mihai Christodorescu, Ryan Craven, Soheil Feizi, Neil Gong, Mia Hoffmann, Somesh Jha, Zhengyuan Jiang, Mehrdad Saberi Kamarposhti, John Mitchell, Jessica Newman, Emelia Probasco, Yanjun Qi, Khawaja Shams, Matthew Turek
The rise of Generative AI (GenAI) brings about transformative potential across sectors, but its dual-use nature also amplifies risks. Governments globally are grappling with the challenge of regulating GenAI, balancing innovation against safety. China, the United States (US), and the European Union (EU) are at the forefront with initiatives like the Management of Algorithmic Recommendations, the Executive Order, and the AI Act, respectively. However, the rapid evolution of GenAI capabilities often outpaces the development of comprehensive safety measures, creating a gap between regulatory needs and technical advancements. A workshop co-organized by Google, University of Wisconsin, Madison (UW-Madison), and Stanford University aimed to bridge this gap between GenAI policy and technology. The diverse stakeholders of the GenAI space -- from the public and governments to academia and industry -- make any safety measures under consideration more complex, as both technical feasibility and regulatory guidance must be realized. This paper summarizes the discussions during the workshop which addressed questions, such as: How regulation can be designed without hindering technological progress? How technology can evolve to meet regulatory standards? The interplay between legislation and technology is a very vast topic, and we don't claim that this paper is a comprehensive treatment on this topic. This paper is meant to capture findings based on the workshop, and hopefully, can guide discussion on this topic.
Read more7/19/2024
0
Governing dual-use technologies: Case studies of international security agreements and lessons for AI governance
Akash R. Wasil, Peter Barnett, Michael Gerovitch, Roman Hauksson, Tom Reed, Jack William Miller
International AI governance agreements and institutions may play an important role in reducing global security risks from advanced AI. To inform the design of such agreements and institutions, we conducted case studies of historical and contemporary international security agreements. We focused specifically on those arrangements around dual-use technologies, examining agreements in nuclear security, chemical weapons, biosecurity, and export controls. For each agreement, we examined four key areas: (a) purpose, (b) core powers, (c) governance structure, and (d) instances of non-compliance. From these case studies, we extracted lessons for the design of international AI agreements and governance institutions. We discuss the importance of robust verification methods, strategies for balancing power between nations, mechanisms for adapting to rapid technological change, approaches to managing trade-offs between transparency and security, incentives for participation, and effective enforcement mechanisms.
Read more9/5/2024