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.

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.

A global AI safety regime should learn from nuclear arms control by focusing on the physical infrastructure that enables strategic capabilities. Instead of just seeking promises, it should aim to control access to chokepoints like advanced chip manufacturing and the massive data centers required for frontier models.

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.

The common analogy between regulating AI and nuclear weapons is flawed. Nuclear development requires physically trackable, interceptable materials and facilities like enrichment plants. In contrast, AI models are software and weights, which are diffuse and far more difficult to monitor and control, presenting a fundamentally different and harder regulatory challenge.

The popular comparison of AI to nuclear weapons has a critical flaw. Nuclear regulation relies on tracking scarce, physical, and interceptable fissionable materials. AI, as software and weights, can be copied and distributed far more easily, making the nuclear non-proliferation playbook a poor and dangerous model for AI governance.

Attempts to ban or sanction open-source AI will inevitably fail because software is easily distributed. As models become capable of running on-device, hardware-based leverage points like data centers will become irrelevant, making any ban unenforceable.

The immense strategic advantage offered by AI ensures its development will continue, regardless of safety concerns from insiders. Much like the Manhattan Project, which proceeded despite catastrophic risk, the logic of "if we don't, China will" makes unilateral cessation of research impossible for any major power.

Comparing AI to a nuclear weapon is misleading because AI is a general-purpose technology, not a single-use weapon. A better analogy is the Industrial Revolution. Society didn't give governments control over industrialization; it regulated specific dangerous end-uses like chemical weapons. Similarly, we should ban specific destructive AI applications, not the underlying technology.