Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Bridging the Gap: the case for an Incompletely Theorized Agreement on AI policy

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 2101.06110 v1 pith:4SPG24ML submitted 2021-01-07 cs.CY

classification cs.CY
keywords policyconcernsagreementincompletelylong-termnear-termperspectivestheorized
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent progress in artificial intelligence (AI) raises a wide array of ethical and societal concerns. Accordingly, an appropriate policy approach is needed today. While there has been a wave of scholarship in this field, the research community at times appears divided amongst those who emphasize near-term concerns, and those focusing on long-term concerns and corresponding policy measures. In this paper, we seek to map and critically examine this alleged gulf, with a view to understanding the practical space for inter-community collaboration on AI policy. This culminates in a proposal to make use of the legal notion of an incompletely theorized agreement. We propose that on certain issue areas, scholars working with near-term and long-term perspectives can converge and cooperate on selected mutually beneficial AI policy projects all the while maintaining divergent perspectives.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools