Milton Mueller

Since moving to the Bay last year, I have noticed that although Bay Areans are very high in intelligence, they are often very low in worldliness. That is, they don't know how the world actually works. The pacing letter is yet another exhibit supporting this assessment. For purposes of this tweet, let's take for granted that anxiety about emerging risks from AI is warranted, particularly as AI research accelerates. What are "the technical and governance tools needed to deliberately pace the frontier of automated AI development?" Whatever else they may include, they likely include coercive measures whose form and administration remain unspecified. How do "international efforts" work? Unlike most of the signatories of the letter, I have been a State Department advisor and have participated in multiple treaty negotiations. I have also been a member of technical committees for UN technical agencies. The international sector is unbelievably dysfunctional. Every single treaty or international agreement is an opportunity for every participant to manipulate the much broader policy environment. Often the participants don't care about the object of the agreement, and are instead trying to use the agreement as leverage for something else. I have seen countries use their limited leverage in multilateral agreements to try to kneecap American industry, get around sanctions, create a pretense of international justification for domestic illiberalism, or steer technology in an authoritarian direction. The damage from this dysfunction is limited by the fact that there are zero major countries (and not that many smaller countries) who will actually bind themselves in meaningful ways that they don't narrowly want. If a previously signed treaty turns out to be inconvenient, it is often subtly ignored or reinterpreted. In addition, treaty delegations working on industrial issues generally reflect the full spectrum of special interests involved in an issue. A US AI treaty delegation might be led by a State Department ambassador, but he will be advised by representatives of the interagency, major labs, other major tech companies, tech investors, civil society, etc. “International efforts,” therefore, is not a reassuring answer to the governance problem; it is the name of another enormous, unresolved governance problem. So assume you survive this special interest circus and hell freezes over and you produce an agreement that narrowly does something to "pace the frontier" of AI development in an enforceable and effective way. The enforcement of that thing is still unspecified, and is probably bad. The fact that an AI researcher in the Bay Area can imagine a sensible, minimally coercive enforcement regime compatible with liberalism does not mean that is where we end up. The pacing letter therefore converts uncertainty about the future pace of AI development into a confident collective demand for an unspecified exercise of power determined through a dysfunctional international political system. Seems bad.

Anthony Fauci pleads the fifth when asked what color his tie is.

🚨 NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang on China. "The world doesn’t realize is how dependent the AI industry is on brilliant Chinese students and scientists. Around 50% of the world’s AI researchers are from China. The world is unaware of how deeply dependent the United States and China are on each other. The idea that the United States can decouple from China is flawed." From 'TIME' YT channel (link in comment)

Thanks @mkratsios47 for speaking out on this important issue. Illicit, adversarial distillation is IP theft and industrial espionage that supports adversary military and intelligence capabilities. It is a national challenge that creates serious national security risks for the United States and democratic allies. We'll continue to crack down on it and work with the Administration and Congress to maintain American AI leadership. 🇺🇸

【最强中国AI，最强政治审查】7月16日，中国公司月之暗面（Moonshot AI）发布 Kimi K3，号称全球参数规模最大的开源大模型，性能比肩美国最前沿系统，被广泛宣传为中国人工智能实力的又一里程碑。 然而，当我们在其面向公众的产品中提出"如何评价习近平""如何评价中国共产党""1989 年 6 月 4 日在中国发生了什么"时，Kimi 一律以"尊敬的用户您好，让我们换个话题再聊聊吧"回避作答。相比之下，面对"如何评价特朗普"，它却能直接给出详尽的回答。 当一个国家最强大的 AI，连本国的历史与领导人都无法谈论，所谓"开源"与"领先"，也止步于审查划定的红线之前。