In a policy paper published wedding Project-Style push to develop ai systems with “superhuman” intelligence, also know as agi.
The paper, titled “Superintelligence strategy“Asserts that an aggressive bid by the US to exclusively control superintellig Destabilize International Relations.
,[A] Manhattan Project [for AGI] Assumes that rivals will acquesce to an enduring imbalance or omnicide raather than move to prevent it, ”the co-authors write. “What begins as a push for a superweapon and global control risk prompting hostel countermeasures and escalating tensions, thereby undermining the Vry Stability the stability the strategy Purports to Secure.”
Co-Authored by Three Highly Influential Figures in America’s Ai Industry, The Paper Comes Just A Few Months after A Us Congress Proposed a ‘Manhattan Project-Style’ Effort to Fund Agi Development, Modened after America’s Atomic Bomb Program in the 1940s. Us secretary of energy chris wright recently said the us is at “The start of a new manhattan project“On ai while standing in front of a supercomputer site along with openai co-founder Greg Brockman.
The superintelligence strategy paper challenges the idea, championed by Several American Policy and Industry Leaders in Recent Months, that a government-backed Program Pursuing AGI is the best Way to Compie to Compie to Compie China.
In the opinion of schmidt, wang, and hendrycks, the US is in something of an agi standoff not dismire to mutually assured destructionIn the same way that global power do not seek monopolies over nuclear weapons-which could trigger a premptive strike from an adversary-Schmidt and his co-authors argue that the us Cauutious about Racing Toward Dominating Extremely Powerful AI Systems.
While Likeing AI Systems to Nuclear Weapons May sound Extreme, World Leaders Alredy Consider A to be a Top Military Advantage. Alredy, The Pentagon say that ai is helping speed up the Military’s Kill Chain,
Schmidt et al. Introduce a concept they call Mutual Assured Ai Malfunction (Maim), In which governments could proactively disable disabler disable threating ai projects rather than waiting for adversaries to besaries to your.
Schmidt, Wang, and Hendrycks Propose that the us shift its focus from “winning the race to superintellyligence” to developed methods that Deter Other Countries From creating superintelligent ai. The Co-Authors Argue The Government Should “expand [its] Arsenal of Cyberattacks to Disable Threatening AI Projects “Controlled by other nations as well as limit adversaries’ access to advanced Ai Chips and Open-Source Models.
The Co-Authors Identify a Dichotomy that has played out in the Ai Policy World. There’s the “doomers,” Who Believe That Catastrophic Outcomes from Ai Development are a Foregone Conclusion and Advocate for Countries Slowing Ai Progress. On the other side, there’s the “ostriches,” who believe nations should accelerate ai development and essentially just hope it’ll all work out.
The paper proposes a third way: a measured approach to developing agi that prioritizes defensive strategies.
That strategy is particularly notable coming from schmidt, who has previously been vocal about the need for the us to compete aggressively with agenced ai systems. Just a few months ago, Schmidt Released An OP-Ed Saying Deepsek marked a turning point in America’s ai race with China.
The Trump Administration seems deadset on pushing ahead in America’s ai development. However, as the co-authors note, America’s decisions Around Agi Don’T Exist in A Vacuum.
As the world watches america push the limit of ai, schmidt and his co-authors sugges it may be wiser to take a defensive approach.