-
Bridging the Gap: the case for an Incompletely Theorized Agreement on AI policy
Authors:
Charlotte Stix,
Matthijs M. Maas
Abstract:
Recent progress in artificial intelligence (AI) raises a wide array of ethical and societal concerns. Accordingly, an appropriate policy approach is needed today. While there has been a wave of scholarship in this field, the research community at times appears divided amongst those who emphasize near-term concerns, and those focusing on long-term concerns and corresponding policy measures. In this…
▽ More
Recent progress in artificial intelligence (AI) raises a wide array of ethical and societal concerns. Accordingly, an appropriate policy approach is needed today. While there has been a wave of scholarship in this field, the research community at times appears divided amongst those who emphasize near-term concerns, and those focusing on long-term concerns and corresponding policy measures. In this paper, we seek to map and critically examine this alleged gulf, with a view to understanding the practical space for inter-community collaboration on AI policy. This culminates in a proposal to make use of the legal notion of an incompletely theorized agreement. We propose that on certain issue areas, scholars working with near-term and long-term perspectives can converge and cooperate on selected mutually beneficial AI policy projects all the while maintaining divergent perspectives.
△ Less
Submitted 7 January, 2021;
originally announced January 2021.
-
Roadmap to a Roadmap: How Could We Tell When AGI is a 'Manhattan Project' Away?
Authors:
John-Clark Levin,
Matthijs M. Maas
Abstract:
This paper argues that at a certain point in research toward AGI, the problem may become well-enough theorized that a clear roadmap exists for achieving it, such that a Manhattan Project-like effort could greatly shorten the time to completion. If state actors perceive that this threshold has been crossed, their incentives around openness and international cooperation may shift rather suddenly, wi…
▽ More
This paper argues that at a certain point in research toward AGI, the problem may become well-enough theorized that a clear roadmap exists for achieving it, such that a Manhattan Project-like effort could greatly shorten the time to completion. If state actors perceive that this threshold has been crossed, their incentives around openness and international cooperation may shift rather suddenly, with serious implications for AI risks and the stability of international AI governance regimes. The paper characterizes how such a 'runway' period would be qualitatively different from preceding stages of AI research, and accordingly proposes a research program aimed at assessing how close the field of AI is to such a threshold - that is, it calls for the formulation of a 'roadmap to the roadmap.'
△ Less
Submitted 6 August, 2020;
originally announced August 2020.
-
Should Artificial Intelligence Governance be Centralised? Design Lessons from History
Authors:
Peter Cihon,
Matthijs M. Maas,
Luke Kemp
Abstract:
Can effective international governance for artificial intelligence remain fragmented, or is there a need for a centralised international organisation for AI? We draw on the history of other international regimes to identify advantages and disadvantages in centralising AI governance. Some considerations, such as efficiency and political power, speak in favour of centralisation. Conversely, the risk…
▽ More
Can effective international governance for artificial intelligence remain fragmented, or is there a need for a centralised international organisation for AI? We draw on the history of other international regimes to identify advantages and disadvantages in centralising AI governance. Some considerations, such as efficiency and political power, speak in favour of centralisation. Conversely, the risk of creating a slow and brittle institution speaks against it, as does the difficulty in securing participation while creating stringent rules. Other considerations depend on the specific design of a centralised institution. A well-designed body may be able to deter forum shop** and ensure policy coordination. However, forum shop** can be beneficial and a fragmented landscape of institutions can be self-organising. Centralisation entails trade-offs and the details matter. We conclude with two core recommendations. First, the outcome will depend on the exact design of a central institution. A well-designed centralised regime covering a set of coherent issues could be beneficial. But locking-in an inadequate structure may pose a fate worse than fragmentation. Second, for now fragmentation will likely persist. This should be closely monitored to see if it is self-organising or simply inadequate.
△ Less
Submitted 10 January, 2020;
originally announced January 2020.
