arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv subjects

James Teague

Publications and source records attributed to James Teague.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Could Underwater Data Centers Pose a Risk to AI Treaty Verification?

Proposals for international agreements that limit frontier AI development depend on verification, and a central challenge is detecting undeclared compute facilities used to evade restrictions. Underwater data centers (UDCs) have been suggested as one such evasion vector, but their feasibility at frontier scale and their detectability have not been seriously assessed. We examine current UDC deployments, evaluate construction and maintenance complexity relative to land-based facilities, and analyse the feasibility of a 100,000 H100-equivalent training run underwater. We find that power delivery and cooling are tractable, but interconnect and the hands-on maintenance that large training runs require are severe obstacles - surmountable only by a well-resourced state actor accepting large cost and schedule penalties, and only where concealment, rather than efficiency, is the objective. We then assess detectability through thermal, acoustic, optical and synthetic-aperture-radar (SAR) surveillance. Thermal detection of an operational pod is unlikely outside shallow, calm water; acoustic detection is marginally more effective, but faces limitations in attribution; and optical/SAR monitoring is most powerful during construction and maintenance, when the pressure-vessel fabrication base and the cable-laying fleet create distinctive signatures for AIS-tracking. We conclude that UDCs are a comparatively unlikely evasion route relative to underground or industrially disguised land-based facilities, but the residual risk is non-zero and warrants operationalising the detection modalities discussed.

cs.CY

Mapping U.S. Federal AI Governance Against Sector Vulnerability

Artificial intelligence (AI) poses different levels of risk across sectors, but are these differences reflected in U.S. federal AI governance? To help answer this question, we assess 684 federal AI governance documents for their coverage of 14 sectors and 24 AI risks. We measure coverage as breadth (i.e., how frequently the risk or sector is addressed across documents) and depth (i.e., how substantively the risk or sector is discussed). We then compare sector coverage patterns for each of the 24 risks with vulnerability assessments from a Delphi study of 272 experts. Our analysis finds substantial variation in coverage: AI risks related to robustness, system security, and governance receive more attention than socioeconomic, environmental, and emerging risks, including multi-agent risks. Public administration, national security, information, and scientific services receive comparatively high levels of coverage relative to other sectors, such as finance and healthcare, which experts rate as highly vulnerable to AI risks. By mapping current coverage and identifying where it differs from expert assessments of vulnerability, we surface potential AI governance gaps which may help inform AI risk-related decisions across government and industry.

cs.CY