\n<\/p>\n
In a policy paper published Wednesday, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, Scale AI CEO Alexandr Wang, and Center for AI Safety Director Dan Hendrycks said that the U.S. should not pursue a Manhattan Project-style push to develop AI systems with \u201csuperhuman\u201d intelligence, also known as AGI.<\/p>\n
The paper, titled \u201cSuperintelligence Strategy<\/a>,\u201d asserts that an aggressive bid by the U.S. to exclusively control superintelligent AI systems could prompt fierce retaliation from China, potentially in the form of a cyberattack, which could destabilize international relations.<\/p>\n \u201c[A] Manhattan Project [for AGI] assumes that rivals will acquiesce to an enduring imbalance or omnicide rather than move to prevent it,\u201d the co-authors write. \u201cWhat 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.\u201d<\/p>\n Co-authored by three highly influential figures in America\u2019s AI industry, the paper comes just a few months after a U.S. congressional commission proposed a \u201cManhattan Project-style\u201d<\/a> effort to fund AGI development, modeled after America\u2019s atomic bomb program in the 1940s. U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright recently said the U.S. is at \u201cthe start of a new Manhattan Project<\/a>\u201d on AI while standing in front of a supercomputer site alongside OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman.<\/p>\n 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 compete with China.<\/p>\n In the opinion of Schmidt, Wang, and Hendrycks, the U.S. is in something of an AGI standoff not dissimilar to mutually assured destruction<\/a>. In the same way that global powers do not seek monopolies over nuclear weapons \u2014 which could trigger a preemptive strike from an adversary \u2014 Schmidt and his co-authors argue that the U.S. should be cautious about racing toward dominating extremely powerful AI systems.<\/p>\n While likening AI systems to nuclear weapons may sound extreme, world leaders already consider AI to be a top military advantage. Already, the Pentagon says that AI is helping speed up the military\u2019s kill chain<\/a>. <\/p>\n Schmidt et al. introduce a concept they call Mutual Assured AI Malfunction (MAIM), in which governments could proactively disable threatening AI projects rather than waiting for adversaries to weaponize AGI.<\/p>\n Schmidt, Wang, and Hendrycks propose that the U.S. shift its focus from \u201cwinning the race to superintelligence\u201d to developing methods that deter other countries<\/em> from creating superintelligent AI. The co-authors argue the government should \u201cexpand [its] arsenal of cyberattacks to disable threatening AI projects\u201d controlled by other nations as well as limit adversaries\u2019 access to advanced AI chips and open source models.<\/p>\n The co-authors identify a dichotomy that has played out in the AI policy world. There are the \u201cdoomers,\u201d who believe that catastrophic outcomes from AI development are a foregone conclusion and advocate for countries slowing AI progress. On the other side, there are the \u201costriches,\u201d who believe nations should accelerate AI development and essentially just hope it\u2019ll all work out.<\/p>\n The paper proposes a third way: a measured approach to developing AGI that prioritizes defensive strategies.<\/p>\n That strategy is particularly notable coming from Schmidt, who has previously been vocal about the need for the U.S. to compete aggressively with China in developing advanced AI systems. Just a few months ago, Schmidt released an op-ed saying DeepSeek marked a turning point in America\u2019s AI race with China.<\/a><\/p>\n The Trump administration seems dead set on pushing ahead in America\u2019s AI development. However, as the co-authors note, America\u2019s decisions around AGI don\u2019t exist in a vacuum.<\/p>\n As the world watches America push the limit of AI, Schmidt and his co-authors suggest it may be wiser to take a defensive approach.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n