Executive summary: The post distinguishes between two types of AI development pauses: a long-term global moratorium as a theory of victory, and methods to simply slow AGI development, highlighting their key differences and implications.
Key points:
A global moratorium requires international agreement and strict enforcement, potentially backed by force or advanced AI systems.
Slowing AGI development can be achieved through various regulatory and economic measures, without necessarily requiring international consensus.
A moratorium aims for long-term prevention of AGI development, while slowing buys time for alignment solutions or governance measures.
Slowing strategies are more flexible and have precedents in existing governance, while a moratorium would require unprecedented international cooperation.
The author argues for clearer distinction between these concepts to improve discussions on AI governance and safety strategies.
Both approaches have different requirements, implications for sovereignty, and adaptability to future socio-technical changes.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, andcontact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: The post distinguishes between two types of AI development pauses: a long-term global moratorium as a theory of victory, and methods to simply slow AGI development, highlighting their key differences and implications.
Key points:
A global moratorium requires international agreement and strict enforcement, potentially backed by force or advanced AI systems.
Slowing AGI development can be achieved through various regulatory and economic measures, without necessarily requiring international consensus.
A moratorium aims for long-term prevention of AGI development, while slowing buys time for alignment solutions or governance measures.
Slowing strategies are more flexible and have precedents in existing governance, while a moratorium would require unprecedented international cooperation.
The author argues for clearer distinction between these concepts to improve discussions on AI governance and safety strategies.
Both approaches have different requirements, implications for sovereignty, and adaptability to future socio-technical changes.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.