Here's a simple proposal for verifiable and enforceable slowdown that also differentially reallocates resources to alignment research (which I would see as one of if not the major benefits of a slowdown):
Enforce that labs must spend at least X% of their compute on:
I think this is much better than other slowdown proposals I've seen, since I think it's very concrete, verifiable, and enforceable—all the labs know exactly what they're spending their compute on, many employees know as well, and so whisteblowing is very possible—and it also differentially advantages alignment research by choosing conditions (external or fully public research) that make it much harder to do capabilities under those conditions but still pretty easy to do alignment. If you just say that compute has to go to some sort of nebulous "safety" purpose, that could easily be gamed, but I think the conditions above do a pretty good job of operationalizing criteria that are fairly hard to game. And even if you do get some gaming, on the margin you are still making capabilities research more costly, and thus buying yourself some additional slowdown, as well as making alignment research less costly, and thus buying yourself some additional alignment research.
(A possible second-best proposal if this is unworkable for some reason is just to enforce X% of compute go to external inference of some variety, which is more concrete and still gets you lots of slowdown, but less differentially advantages alignment research.)
I like this! Here's a specific concrete version of it just to have some numbers on the table:
Companies are legally required to allocate their compute as follows:
1. 60% on serving customers.
2. 15% on internal safety research that's fully transparent to the public.
3. 10% on external safety research that's fully transparent to the public & has access to the latest internal models.
4. 15% on whatever else they want (so, presumably, core AI R&D and big training runs)
Suppose this were a US law, that applies to all the major AI companies but not to e.g. Ch... (read more)