• Home
  • Technology
  • Gaming
  • Entertainment
  • World & Business
  • Science
  • Sports
  • AI
HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
  • HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • Home
    • Technology
    • Gaming
    • Entertainment
    • World & Business
    • Science
    • Sports
    • AI
    AI

    US–China cooperation in “AI 2040” plan A

    A post discussing Kokotajlo and coauthors’ proposal says the plan would place US-owned datacenters in Mongolia and Chinese-owned ones in Canada, making that compute vulnerable to destruction if either side defects.

    AG
    1 Source, ,

    TLDR

    A post examining Kokotajlo and coauthors’ “AI 2040” outlines several assumptions behind its “plan A” for pacing AI progress. The US and China would cooperate, declare essentially all large datacenters and AI compute, and allow inspections sufficient to reassure each side that the other is hiding less than roughly 1% of its compute. The post describes a temporary pause on all new AI training, with existing models still usable and datacenters retrofitted with “inference-only” verification hardware. Nearly all frontier research would be shared, while model weights, some training data and other sensitive information would remain protected. It also describes “Mutually Assured Compute Destruction”: US-owned datacenters in Mongolia and Chinese-owned ones in Canada would make compute vulnerable to destruction if either side defects.

    Combined views

    1.5K

    1 Source, first seen 18d ago

    Combined views

    1.5K

    1 Source, first seen 18d ago

    14 likes
    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    18d ago
    first seen 18d ago
    14 likes
    2 comments
    3 saves
    1 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    2 comments
    3 saves
    1 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    1 Source

    @gordic_aleksaThoughts on Kokotajlo et al.’s "AI 2040", a proposal for pacing AI progress (in particular their "plan A") Some key assumptions required to make the plan work: 1. The US and China choose to cooperate on slowing down AI development, including declaring essentially all large datacenters / AI compute and allowing enough inspection that each side is confident the other is hiding <~1% of its compute. 2. All new AI training runs are temporarily paused, while existing models can still be used for inference. Datacenters are retrofitted with "inference-only" verification hardware so each side can verify, in a low-trust setting, that the other isn't secretly training new models. 3. "Total Research Transparency" is introduced -> nearly all frontier AI research (algorithms, code, prompts, documentation, experiment results...) is shared. Model weights, some training data, and other sensitive information remain protected. 4. Both sides accept something like "Mutually Assured Compute Destruction": new datacenters / AI compute are made vulnerable to the other side. In particular, their proposal is that US-owned datacenters are built in Mongolia and Chinese-owned datacenters are built in Canada. If one side chooses to defect, the compute can be destroyed. Initial thoughts (incomplete/raw, given that there is simply too much to cover without spending significant time on a blog-format reply): 1. Obviously, a ton of effort and thought went into this, especially when you consider all the alternative branches they explore. I applaud them for putting it out for public scrutiny. 2. The cadence above looks like a chain of low-probability events. Re 1,2,3: coordination at this level between China and the US seems very unlikely (little historical precedent that something like this is possible?). Re 4: it assumes countries X (Mongolia) and Y (Canada) are willing to host strategically important datacenters while accepting the reality that those facilities could be bombed / destroyed if the agreement breaks down. 3. It doesn’t really consider what happens to the broader US (and thus global) economy under this policy, which currently assumes that revenues will follow the enormous capex investment that has already happened and is continuing to accelerate. 4. There’s a sentence like this in one of the plans: "Well, what happens next depends on who you ask, but answers range over possibilities such as 'take our jobs,' 'cement hegemony forever,' and 'get everyone killed.'" The last few days of my TL have definitely felt like mode collapse around a narrative coming from a group of people who are, on average, much less optimistic about the future. I reject the above as the only 3 possible outcomes.

    1 Source

    @gordic_aleksaThoughts on Kokotajlo et al.’s "AI 2040", a proposal for pacing AI progress (in particular their "plan A") Some key assumptions required to make the plan work: 1. The US and China choose to cooperate on slowing down AI development, including declaring essentially all large datacenters / AI compute and allowing enough inspection that each side is confident the other is hiding <~1% of its compute. 2. All new AI training runs are temporarily paused, while existing models can still be used for inference. Datacenters are retrofitted with "inference-only" verification hardware so each side can verify, in a low-trust setting, that the other isn't secretly training new models. 3. "Total Research Transparency" is introduced -> nearly all frontier AI research (algorithms, code, prompts, documentation, experiment results...) is shared. Model weights, some training data, and other sensitive information remain protected. 4. Both sides accept something like "Mutually Assured Compute Destruction": new datacenters / AI compute are made vulnerable to the other side. In particular, their proposal is that US-owned datacenters are built in Mongolia and Chinese-owned datacenters are built in Canada. If one side chooses to defect, the compute can be destroyed. Initial thoughts (incomplete/raw, given that there is simply too much to cover without spending significant time on a blog-format reply): 1. Obviously, a ton of effort and thought went into this, especially when you consider all the alternative branches they explore. I applaud them for putting it out for public scrutiny. 2. The cadence above looks like a chain of low-probability events. Re 1,2,3: coordination at this level between China and the US seems very unlikely (little historical precedent that something like this is possible?). Re 4: it assumes countries X (Mongolia) and Y (Canada) are willing to host strategically important datacenters while accepting the reality that those facilities could be bombed / destroyed if the agreement breaks down. 3. It doesn’t really consider what happens to the broader US (and thus global) economy under this policy, which currently assumes that revenues will follow the enormous capex investment that has already happened and is continuing to accelerate. 4. There’s a sentence like this in one of the plans: "Well, what happens next depends on who you ask, but answers range over possibilities such as 'take our jobs,' 'cement hegemony forever,' and 'get everyone killed.'" The last few days of my TL have definitely felt like mode collapse around a narrative coming from a group of people who are, on average, much less optimistic about the future. I reject the above as the only 3 possible outcomes.