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
Signed reviews
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
International Security Applications of Flexible Hardware-Enabled Guarantees
A policy report argues that hardware-level guarantees on AI chips could make international AI governance agreements stable if states value winning only modestly and fear catastrophe sufficiently.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.