The co-authors wrote “[An] Manhattan Project [for AGI] assumes that rivals will acquiesce to an enduring imbalance or omnicide rather than move to prevent it,” talso adding “What begins as a push for a superweapon and global control risks prompting hostile countermeasures and escalating tensions, thereby undermining the very stability the strategy purports to secure.”
The paper that has been co-authored by three important names in America’s AI industry, the paper comes just a few months after a US congressional commission that has proposed a “Manhattan Style-Project” in the effort of funding an AGI modeled after America’s atomic bomb program in the 1940s.
As a result, Chris Wright, the secretary of Energy, recently said the US is at “the start of a new Manhattan Project” on AI while standing in front of a supercomputer site alongside Greg Brockman, the co-founder of OpenAI.
According to Schmidt, Wang and Hendrycks, the US is in an AGI standoff, not dissimilar to mutually assured destruction. In the same way that global powers do not look to monopolize over nuclear weapons that can also be the trigger of a strike, that Schmidt and his co-authors argue that the US should be cautious about the race that surrounds the race towards powerful AI systems.
As a response, the three of them are proposing a shift from “winning the race to superintelligence” to developing methods that deter other countries. They also argue that the government should “expand [its] arsenal of cyberattacks to disable threatening AI projects” that are controlled by other nations as well as limit adversaries’ access to the latest generation of AI chips as well as the open source models.
In the paper mentioned, it is proposed another manner in which a measured approach to developing AGI that prioritizes defensive strategies can take place, wrote TechCrunch.
.webp)
