The idea of nations collectively creating policies to slow AI development for safety is naive. Game theory dictates that the immense competitive advantage of achieving AGI first will drive nations and companies to race ahead, making any global regulatory agreement effectively unenforceable.
Related Insights
The justification for accelerating AI development to beat China is logically flawed. It assumes the victor wields a controllable tool. In reality, both nations are racing to build the same uncontrollable AI, making the race itself, not the competitor, the primary existential threat.
The same governments pushing AI competition for a strategic edge may be forced into cooperation. As AI democratizes access to catastrophic weapons (CBRN), the national security risk will become so great that even rival superpowers will have a mutual incentive to create verifiable safety treaties.
The development of AI won't stop because of game theory. For competing nations like the US and China, the risk of falling behind is greater than the collective risk of developing the technology. This dynamic makes the AI race an unstoppable force, mirroring the Cold War nuclear arms race and rendering calls for a pause futile.
The idea that AI development is a winner-take-all race to AGI is a compelling story that simplifies complex realities. This narrative is strategically useful as it creates a pretext for aggressive, 'do whatever it takes' behavior, sidestepping the messier nature of real-world conflict.
In the high-stakes race for AGI, nations and companies view safety protocols as a hindrance. Slowing down for safety could mean losing the race to a competitor like China, reframing caution as a luxury rather than a necessity in this competitive landscape.
A ban on superintelligence is self-defeating because enforcement would require a sanctioned, global government body to build the very technology it prohibits in order to "prove it's safe." This paradoxically creates a state-controlled monopoly on the most powerful technology ever conceived, posing a greater risk than a competitive landscape.
Pausing or regulating AI development domestically is futile. Because AI offers a winner-take-all advantage, competing nations like China will inevitably lie about slowing down while developing it in secret. Unilateral restraint is therefore a form of self-sabotage.
A fundamental tension within OpenAI's board was the catch-22 of safety. While some advocated for slowing down, others argued that being too cautious would allow a less scrupulous competitor to achieve AGI first, creating an even greater safety risk for humanity. This paradox fueled internal conflict and justified a rapid development pace.
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.
Regardless of potential dangers, AI will be developed relentlessly. Game theory dictates that any nation or company that pauses or slows down will be at a catastrophic disadvantage to competitors who don't. This competitive pressure ensures the technology will advance without brakes.
