Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Nuclear Arms Control Verification and Lessons for AI Treaties

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2304.04123 v1 pith:22VX5EYW submitted 2023-04-08 cs.CY physics.soc-ph

Nuclear Arms Control Verification and Lessons for AI Treaties

classification cs.CY physics.soc-ph
keywords verificationagreementsarmscontrolnuclearcaseverifyingchallenges
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Security risks from AI have motivated calls for international agreements that guardrail the technology. However, even if states could agree on what rules to set on AI, the problem of verifying compliance might make these agreements infeasible. To help clarify the difficulty of verifying agreements on AI$\unicode{x2013}$and identify actions that might reduce this difficulty$\unicode{x2013}$this report examines the case study of verification in nuclear arms control. We review the implementation, track records, and politics of verification across three types of nuclear arms control agreements. Then, we consider implications for the case of AI, especially AI development that relies on thousands of highly specialized chips. In this context, the case study suggests that, with certain preparations, the foreseeable challenges of verification would be reduced to levels that were successfully managed in nuclear arms control. To avoid even worse challenges, substantial preparations are needed: (1) developing privacy-preserving, secure, and acceptably priced methods for verifying the compliance of hardware, given inspection access; and (2) building an initial, incomplete verification system, with authorities and precedents that allow its gaps to be quickly closed if and when the political will arises.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Hardware-Level Governance of AI Compute: A Feasibility Taxonomy for Regulatory Compliance and Treaty Verification

    cs.CR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Proposes a feasibility taxonomy of 20 hardware-level AI compute governance mechanisms organized by monitoring, verification, and enforcement, with mappings to regulatory scenarios that highlight immaturity of treaty-v...