Governments and labs should build the capability for a global slowdown of frontier AI development in case it's needed

It is designed to keep up with the field’s acceleration and adapt to the biggest risks as they are identified, and could be ratcheted up if the seriousness of the situation demands, including coordinating a slowdown in development among the Frontier ...

This is where UN and more generally international cooperation can step in to make sure that there is international pressure to progress at a safe pace so we can actually capture the AI benefits that the increasing capabilities are bringing, and not s...

Given low international trust, signatories will want to verify compliance. This paper analyzes how such restrictions on AI research could be verified, while remaining agnostic about what specific research would be prohibited.

Congress has a moral obligation to stand with the American people and stop the expansion of these data centers until we have a framework to adequately address the existential harm AI poses to our society. We must choose humanity over profit.

Will the Government get behind the CEO of Anthropic and back his call for a halt in development so that we can retrofit ethics at the heart of AI before it is too late

We believe it would be good for the world to have the option to slow or temporarily pause frontier AI development to enable societal structures and alignment research to keep up with the advance of the technology.

They conclude that the only trajectory without unacceptably high levels of catastrophic harm is a scenario in which humanity develops the ability to monitor and restrict AI development (an “off switch”) and then likely uses it to put a long-term halt...

We need to slow down the development of AI around the world, and we need to bring the international community together to address the risk posed by AI.

[...] And the whole world might have an interest in saying, hold on, wait -- let's not make artificial super intelligence until we can be sure that it can be controlled or done safely. [...] We can have all that while at the same time working togethe...

They call for international red lines to prevent unacceptable AI risks, including prohibiting superintelligence development, until there is broad scientific consensus on how it can be done safely and with strong public buy-in.

Until such time as these virtues can be woven into machines, with the protections to shut them down safely, an international moratorium is the only safe way forward, and I would urge His Majesty’s Government to pursue it.

A moratorium and binding international regulation of ASI is, frankly, our only hope, however hard it will be to agree.

So I call on the Government to think through the need not just for a moratorium on development but for some international agreement.

A good pause strategy would involve both sides being able to monitor the other's data centers to prevent illegal training, then limiting training to some slow mutually-agreeable rate that lets alignment researchers thoroughly test each generation of ...

Inspired by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), this agency will be responsible for: 1. Granting approval for major deployments and training runs of AIs that are judged not to pose a threat to humanity. This will include red-teaming and mo...

If there was a way to do a coordinated global slowdown on development, ... that would be good. [...] The real question is: why isn’t there hard regulation here?

An off switch refers to building the necessary technical, legal, and institutional infrastructure to make it possible for humanity to shut down unsafe AI systems and AI projects. It will also make it possible to verify that there is no dangerous AI d...

The moratorium on new large training runs needs to be indefinite and worldwide. There can be no exceptions, including for governments or militaries. If the policy starts with the U.S., then China needs to see that the U.S. is not seeking an advantage...

Superintelligence could become extremely powerful and be able to shape the future according to its preferences. [...] If humanity had been sane and had our act together globally, the sensible course of action would be to postpone development of super...

For governments to allow private entities to essentially play Russian roulette with every human being on earth is, in my view, a total dereliction of duty [...] Each of the CEOs of the main AI companies, I believe, wants to disarm but cannot do so "u...

Serious harms from advanced AI systems have already begun to materialise. [...] As risks from advanced AI do not respect boundaries, this is a global challenge that requires co-ordinated solutions at international level. [...] The UK can lead diploma...

OpenAI has long believed there should ultimately be an international organization that helps coordinate leading AI efforts to reduce catastrophic risk. One goal of such an organization should be to make it possible for the world to take coordinated a...

If it were possible to effectively slow the development of this technology to give ourselves more time to deal with its immense implications, we think that would likely be a good thing. But if a slowdown simply lets the least cautious actors catch up...

We believe it would be good for the world to have the option to slow or temporarily pause frontier AI development to enable societal structures and alignment research to keep up with the advance of the technology. [...] [A pause would require] multip...

If leading AI companies are indeed approaching the point of recursive self-improvement, a coordinated, verifiable, and universally applied pause is probably the only responsible solution to mitigate several major AI risks; at least until safety guara...

Technology developers, providers and their regulators must therefore: build circuit breakers and ‘kill switches’ into system design; ... ensure access and verification mechanisms.

The primary prerequisite to even considering starting to work on a safe ASI plan is to have a global ASI ban and powerful enforcement already in place. Unsafe ASI is vastly easier to build than controlled ASI, and is on the same tech path. [...] The ...

The question that the noble Lord posed was: do we therefore go for a moratorium? That would be highly desirable, but I do not think that it will be possible in the short term.

The Technology Secretary rejected calls to pause the development of artificial intelligence, describing such a move as “a double betrayal” of British talent and British interests.

For me, a one-sided moratorium which ties our hands behind our backs while the likes of North Korea and the al-Qaedas of the world crack on: no, I am afraid that that worries me even more.

I come from the position of saying that moratoriums will not work.

I hope that, when the Minister responds, she will confirm that the Government have no plan to suppress the development of ASI.

My own view, after talking with colleagues in the AI Security Institute and the Alan Turing Institute, is that a moratorium would be unenforceable.

This would be practically impossible, because the economic and national security stakes are simply too high for any superpower to willingly hit the brakes now. [...] Tracking decentralized computing resources, private data centers and algorithmic res...

I have been arguing for tech and AI regulation for years. It seems like something almost everyone agrees on, but no one can figure out how to broadly implement it. Instead, we get piecemeal bits from local municipalities and Executive Orders. Slowdow...