A Narrow Path: a plan to deal with AI extinction risk

I coincidentally submitted an essay describing my ideas for a plan to the Cosmos essay contest just a day before you published your plan. I look forward to writing a post analyzing the similarities and differences between our plans once Cosmos is done with the judging and I can share my plan publicly.

Thanks for writing this and proposing a plan. Coincidentally, I drafted a short take here yesterday explaining one complaint I currently have with the safety conditions of this plan. In short, I suspect the “No AIs improving other AIs” criterion isn't worth including within a safety plan: it i) doesn't address that many more marginal threat models (or does so ineffectively) and ii) would be too unpopular to implement (or, alternatively, too weak to be useful).

I think there is a version of this plan with a lower safety tax, with more focus on reactive policy and the other three criterion, that I would be more excited about.

TL;DR 

From a skim, there are many claims here which I agree / sympathise with. 

That said, I also want to make sure this piece stands up to the epistemic "sniff" test. The gist of the piece seems to operate around Simulacrum Levels 2 / 3 [? · GW]  ["Choose what to say based on what your statement will cause other people to do or believe"  / "Say things that signal membership to your ingroup."].^[1] 

From a quick epistemic spot check [? · GW] of just the intro, I'd say that half the claims are accurate on SL1. My guess is this is pretty standard for a lot of advocacy-focused writing, but lower than most LW writing.

--

Below is a short epistemic spot check of the (non-normative) claims in the introduction, to see whether this piece stands up well on Simulacrum Level 1 ["Attempt to describe the world accurately"]. I use emojis to capture whether the claim is backed by some reasoning or a reliable source

• ✅ = The claim attempts to accurately describe the world (through evidence or reasoning)
• ❌ = The claim does not attempt to accurately describe the world (e.g. through a lack of evidence, poor evidence, or the misrepesentation of evidence)
• ❔= Ambiguous

From the top:

(1) ❌

There is a simple truth - humanity’s extinction is possible. Recent history has also shown us another truth - we can create artificial intelligence (AI) that can rival humanity.1

The footnote says "While there are many such metrics, one useful introductory roundup for those less familiar is at I Gave ChatGPT an IQ Test. Here's What I Discovered | Scientific American". The source linked describes someone impressed by ChatGPT's abilities [in March 2023], giving it an IQ of 155. This source (a) is an unusual choice for measuring frontier AI capabilities, and [more importantly] (b) it does not support the claim "recent history shows we can create an AI that can rival humanity" 

[Note - I think this claim is likely true, but it's not defensible from this source alone]

(2) ✅

Companies across the globe are investing to create artificial superintelligence – that they believe will surpass the collective capabilities of all humans. They publicly state that it is not a matter of “if” such artificial superintelligence might exist, but “when”.2 

The footnote links to these two sources:

• The first is from Chief of Staff at Anthropic. They state "For the same reasons I expect us to reach AGI, I expect it to progress beyond this point, to where we have “superhuman” systems." 
• The second is announcing superalignment fast grants. They state "We believe superintelligence could arrive within the next 10 years."

(3) ❌

Reasonable estimates by both private AI companies and independent third parties indicate that they believe it could cost only tens to hundreds of billions of dollars to create artificial superintelligence. 

No source is given. It's not clear what "reasonable" estimates they are referring to. Cotra's bioanchors says that companies might be willing to spend ~$100 bn to create AGI. But crucially, $100bn today might not buy you enough compute / capabilities.

[Again, I think this claim could be true, but there's no source and "reasonable" allows for too much slippage]

(4)✅

[Catastrophic and extinction] risks have been acknowledged by world3 leaders4, leading scientists and AI industry leaders567, and analyzed by other researchers, including the recent Gladstone Report commissioned by the US Department of State8 and various reports by the Center for AI Safety and the Future of Life Institute.910

Footnotes 3 - 10 aim to support the claim of consensus on AI x-risks. Looking at each in turn:

• 3 and 4 are from Rishi Sunak [former UK PM] and President von der Leyen. The former said "In the most unlikely but extreme cases, there is even the risk that humanity could lose control of AI completely…". The latter quotes the CAIS statement. So they do both acknowledge the risk. However there are of course many who have not acknowledged this. 
• 5 and 6 are the CAIS and FLI letters. CAIS definitely has leading scientists & AI industry leaders acknowledge the risks.
• 7 is from Sam Altman: "Development of superhuman machine intelligence (SMI) is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity"
• 8 is the Gladstone report, which definitely acknowledges the risks, but is a long way from "The US government recognizes AI x-risk"
• 9 and 10 are overviews of AI x-risk.

Overall I would say these mostly support the claim.

From then on, a lot more claims (in "The Problem" and "The Solution") are made without support. I think this is forgivable if they're backed in later parts of the report. At some future date, I might go through Phases 0, 1 and 2 (or someone else is very welcome to have a stab)

1. ^{^}

   (To give some benefit of the doubt, I'll add that (a) this piece feels lower on the Simulacrum-o-meter than Situational Awareness, (b)  this piece is on about the same Simulacrum level as other AI policy debate pieces, and (c) it's unsurprisingly high given an intention to persuade rather than inform. My reason for scrutinizing this is not because it's poor - I just happened to be sufficiently motivated / nerdsniped at the time of reading it.)

The executive summary seems essentially right to me. My only objection is that Phase 4 should probably be human intelligence augmentation.

It sounds like the core idea is a variant of the Intelligence Manhattan Project idea, but with a focus on long term international stability & a ban on competitors.

Perhaps the industry would be more likely to adopt this plan if GUARD could seek revenue the way corporations currently do: by selling stock & API subscriptions. This would also increase productivity for GUARD & shorten the dangerous arms race interval.