Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

AI Governance to Avoid Extinction: The Strategic Landscape and Actionable Research Questions

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 2505.04592 v1 pith:K3HCZDXK submitted 2025-05-07 cs.CY cs.AI

AI Governance to Avoid Extinction: The Strategic Landscape and Actionable Research Questions

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

Humanity appears to be on course to soon develop AI systems that substantially outperform human experts in all cognitive domains and activities. We believe the default trajectory has a high likelihood of catastrophe, including human extinction. Risks come from failure to control powerful AI systems, misuse of AI by malicious rogue actors, war between great powers, and authoritarian lock-in. This research agenda has two aims: to describe the strategic landscape of AI development and to catalog important governance research questions. These questions, if answered, would provide important insight on how to successfully reduce catastrophic risks. We describe four high-level scenarios for the geopolitical response to advanced AI development, cataloging the research questions most relevant to each. Our favored scenario involves building the technical, legal, and institutional infrastructure required to internationally restrict dangerous AI development and deployment (which we refer to as an Off Switch), which leads into an internationally coordinated Halt on frontier AI activities at some point in the future. The second scenario we describe is a US National Project for AI, in which the US Government races to develop advanced AI systems and establish unilateral control over global AI development. We also describe two additional scenarios: a Light-Touch world similar to that of today and a Threat of Sabotage situation where countries use sabotage and deterrence to slow AI development. In our view, apart from the Off Switch and Halt scenario, all of these trajectories appear to carry an unacceptable risk of catastrophic harm. Urgent action is needed from the US National Security community and AI governance ecosystem to answer key research questions, build the capability to halt dangerous AI activities, and prepare for international AI agreements.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Falling Behind Drives Unsafe Development in an Idealised AI Race Experiment

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Unsafe choices in a two-player AI-race experiment were driven more by the opponent's actions and by falling behind than by the level of risk or individual risk preferences.

  2. How to Catch a GPU: A Taxonomy of Verification and Enforcement Mechanisms for International AI Agreements

    cs.CY 2026-06 conditional novelty 6.0

    Verification of international AI agreements will fail first at detecting hidden compute facilities, around the 10,000-H100-equivalent scale, before other enforcement mechanisms break.