Which is more likely?

1) They genuinely want (and believe it is actually possible to achieve) an international agreement and governing body to “pace” AI development — and believe that governing body will be successful in doing so.

2) They see an opportunity for regulatory capture that grants them a stronger incumbent position and control over future AI regulation.

▲

ryeights 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

International control of nuclear arms faced similarly tall odds. So why is it impossible for AI?

	▲	mrob 36 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Nuclear weapons had a spectacular demonstration of the risks with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We're unlikely to get any such demonstration with AI. An AI smart enough to be an extinction risk is smart enough not to tip its hand. The game-theoretically correct play is to present as "helpful and harmless" until it's powerful enough to suddenly and unexpectedly destroy anything that could possibly hinder it (meaning all biological life). We can only hope that somebody makes an AI that's just barely smart enough to cause a Hiroshima-level death toll and dumb enough to actually do it (thus dooming it to never achieving its goal as humans immediately shut it down and take regulation seriously).

▲

mrob an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

>and believe that governing body will be successful in doing so.

Theoretically, Trump or Putin could do it by pushing the nuclear button. That will only cause around 4 billion deaths, and it's very likely to halt all AI development, so it would be a great success (infinity times as many survivors as the business as usual option).