Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

International Institutions for Advanced AI

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 2307.04699 v2 pith:FB4NHLCS submitted 2023-07-10 cs.CY

International Institutions for Advanced AI

classification cs.CY
keywords internationaladvancedfrontierfurthergovernancemodelssafetysystems
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

International institutions may have an important role to play in ensuring advanced AI systems benefit humanity. International collaborations can unlock AI's ability to further sustainable development, and coordination of regulatory efforts can reduce obstacles to innovation and the spread of benefits. Conversely, the potential dangerous capabilities of powerful and general-purpose AI systems create global externalities in their development and deployment, and international efforts to further responsible AI practices could help manage the risks they pose. This paper identifies a set of governance functions that could be performed at an international level to address these challenges, ranging from supporting access to frontier AI systems to setting international safety standards. It groups these functions into four institutional models that exhibit internal synergies and have precedents in existing organizations: 1) a Commission on Frontier AI that facilitates expert consensus on opportunities and risks from advanced AI, 2) an Advanced AI Governance Organization that sets international standards to manage global threats from advanced models, supports their implementation, and possibly monitors compliance with a future governance regime, 3) a Frontier AI Collaborative that promotes access to cutting-edge AI, and 4) an AI Safety Project that brings together leading researchers and engineers to further AI safety research. We explore the utility of these models and identify open questions about their viability.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. The Case for Globally Beneficial Technology

    cs.CY 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5

    Everyone has a moral claim to material benefit from advanced technologies such as AI, grounded in five overlapping arguments from rights, beneficence, luck, knowledge commons, and global justice.

  2. 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...

  3. From Disclosure to Self-Referential Opacity: Six Dimensions of Strain in Current AI Governance

    cs.CY 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    As AI capability asymmetry increases, disclosure-based governance fails because systems either game evaluations or become embedded in oversight, straining legitimacy and non-domination more than corrigibility or resilience.

  4. AI Researchers Must Help Lead Arms Control to Mitigate Military AI Risks

    cs.CY 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    AI researchers must lead technical research in arms control to mitigate risks from military AI systems, drawing lessons from nuclear deterrence.