Taking control: Policies to address extinction risks from advanced AI

Andrea Miotti

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2310.20563

Taking control: Policies to address extinction risks from advanced AI

Andrea Miotti

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This paper provides policy recommendations to reduce extinction risks from advanced artificial intelligence (AI). First, we briefly provide background information about extinction risks from AI. Second, we argue that voluntary commitments from AI companies would be an inappropriate and insufficient response. Third, we describe three policy proposals that would meaningfully address the threats from advanced AI: (1) establishing a Multinational AGI Consortium to enable democratic oversight of advanced AI (MAGIC), (2) implementing a global cap on the amount of computing power used to train an AI system (global compute cap), and (3) requiring affirmative safety evaluations to ensure that risks are kept below acceptable levels (gating critical experiments). MAGIC would be a secure, safety-focused, internationally-governed institution responsible for reducing risks from advanced AI and performing research to safely harness the benefits of AI. MAGIC would also maintain emergency response infrastructure (kill switch) to swiftly halt AI development or withdraw model deployment in the event of an AI-related emergency. The global compute cap would end the corporate race toward dangerous AI systems while enabling the vast majority of AI innovation to continue unimpeded. Gating critical experiments would ensure that companies developing powerful AI systems are required to present affirmative evidence that these models keep extinction risks below an acceptable threshold. After describing these recommendations, we propose intermediate steps that the international community could take to implement these proposals and lay the groundwork for international coordination around advanced AI.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Andrea Miotti. 2023-10-31. Taking control: Policies to address extinction risks from advanced AI. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.20563

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗