To prevent a reckless race, a proposed solution is a U.S.-China treaty to govern the resources needed for frontier AI. This would involve tracking and monitoring advanced AI chips in data centers and imposing a verifiable cap on the computational power used for any single training run.

For a blueprint on AI governance, look to Cold War-era geopolitics, not just tech history. The 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty, which established cooperation between the US and Soviet Union, shows that global compromise on new frontiers is possible even amidst intense rivalry. It provides a model for political, not just technical, solutions.

Unlike nuclear weapons, AI is too complex and fast-moving to be managed by formal treaties alone. True safety requires 'organic transparency,' where rich economic, cultural, and scientific engagement between nations builds the trust and informal oversight necessary to prevent catastrophe.

Powerful AI models pose a systemic risk to the global economy. To manage this, the world needs a technocratic body like the Financial Stability Board to identify and respond to AI threats independently from geopolitics.

Formal AI verification is difficult. The necessary trust can be built through "organic transparency"—the informal knowledge gained from deep economic, cultural, and scientific engagement. When business people and scientists from rival nations interact frequently, it creates a baseline understanding that makes formal governance agreements more achievable.

The belief that AI development is unstoppable ignores history. Global treaties successfully limited nuclear proliferation, phased out ozone-depleting CFCs, and banned blinding lasers. These precedents prove that coordinated international action can steer powerful technologies away from the worst outcomes.

The unstated reason AI labs are appealing to the US government to "pace" development is that only a government can handle the necessary international diplomacy. The labs recognize that any meaningful slowdown is futile without China's participation, making the letter an implicit request for the US to initiate a global, coordinated agreement.

Factory's CEO argues that regulating AI at the state level is ineffective. Like climate change or nuclear proliferation, AI is a global phenomenon. A rule in California has no bearing on development in China or Europe, making localized efforts largely symbolic.

International AI treaties, particularly with nations like China, are unlikely to hold based on trust alone. A stable agreement requires a mutually-assured-destruction-style dynamic, meaning the U.S. must develop and signal credible offensive capabilities to deter cheating.