Slowing AI development by even one month is essentially infinite slowness in terms of superintelligence development. It's a kill-shot, a massive policy success.

Lost months are lost exponentially and it becomes impossible to catch up. If this policy worked at all, let alone if it worked as you describe, this was a masterstroke of foreign policy.

This isn't merely my opinion, experts in this field feel superintelligence is at least possible, if not plausible. This is a massively successful policy is true, and, if it's not, little is lost. You've made a very strong case for it.

▲

jyscao 4 days ago | parent [-]

>in terms of superintelligence development

doing a lot of heavy lifting in your conjecture

	▲	catigula 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		This is not merely my opinion, but that of knowledgable AI researchers, many of whom place ASI at not a simple remote possibility, but something they see as almost inevitable given our current understanding of the science. I don't see myself there, but, given that even the faint possibility of superintelligence would be an instant national security priority #1, grinding China into the dust on that permanently seems like a high reward, low risk endeavor. I'm not recruitable via any levers myself into a competitive ethnostate so I'm an American and believe in American primacy.