The Regulatory Institute has developed a draft Convention on Existential Risks. You are kindly invited:

- to comment on the preliminary draft by mail to manager@regulatoryinstitute.org.

- to launch a lobby initiative in favour of such a convention, or 

- to create a dedicated organisation lobbying in favour of such a convention.

Here are a few reasons why such a convention would be helpful and better suited to address existential risks than the current patchwork of conventions dealing with different types of ordinary risks:

  • With today's rapidly evolving technologies, new existential risks can emerge at any time, while negotiations for conventions take many years. A generic existential risk convention would prepare us for any newly emerging existential risk. The risk of coming too late with a new risk-specific convention would be avoided.
  • To increase efficiency, mechanisms for existential risks should be harmonised across sectors, and such harmonisation can hardly be achieved via different international public law instruments.
  • There might be scenarios of borderline and combined existential risks that do not clearly fall under one or the other ordinary risk convention or other instrument.
  • International agreements dealing with risks take as a basis normal risks and not those that threaten the existence of humankind. Accordingly, the agreements are strongly based on the right of sovereignty and in particular territorial integrity of states. Very invasive international measures are therefore not permitted and existential risks are thus not appropriately addressed. States might be more ready to give up state sovereignty for an existential risks convention than for ordinary global risk conventions, as we will see in the following. If so, existential risks could be better addressed by a dedicated existential risks convention because more invasive measures could be accepted in the context of existential risks than in the context of an ordinary international agreement.
  • A dedicated Existential Risks Convention could better cover inhabited areas that are de facto outside any state control. There are areas on earth that formally belong to a state, but de facto are outside any kind of control by a recognised state. Furthermore, more than half of the globe’s surface is outside any state control for at sea outside the zones claimed by states. Laboratories on vessels under the flag of a weak state navigating on the high sea or platforms erected in international shallow waters can operate without any effective state control, whilst modern gene-editing methods (CRISPR-Cas) do not require large facilities. Hence, surveillance needs to be established for the oceans as well.

Please have a look at the draft Convention on Existential Risks to check the possible content of such a convention.

Please share this post with others who might be interested in giving a follow-up to it, namely by lobbying in favour of such a convention. [The Regulatory Institute is not in a position to take over that role.]

1

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
(Audio version here, or search for "Joe Carlsmith Audio" on your podcast app.) > “There comes a moment when the children who have been playing at burglars hush suddenly: was that a real footstep in the hall?”  > > - C.S. Lewis “The Human Condition,” by René Magritte (Image source here) 1. Introduction Sometimes, my thinking feels more “real” to me; and sometimes, it feels more “fake.” I want to do the real version, so I want to understand this spectrum better. This essay offers some reflections.  I give a bunch of examples of this “fake vs. real” spectrum below -- in AI, philosophy, competitive debate, everyday life, and religion. My current sense is that it brings together a cluster of related dimensions, namely: * Map vs. world: Is my mind directed at an abstraction, or it is trying to see past its model to the world beyond? * Hollow vs. solid: Am I using concepts/premises/frames that I secretly suspect are bullshit, or do I expect them to point at basically real stuff, even if imperfectly? * Rote vs. new: Is the thinking pre-computed, or is new processing occurring? * Soldier vs. scout: Is the thinking trying to defend a pre-chosen position, or is it just trying to get to the truth? * Dry vs. visceral: Does the content feel abstract and heady, or does it grip me at some more gut level? These dimensions aren’t the same. But I think they’re correlated – and I offer some speculations about why. In particular, I speculate about their relationship to the “telos” of thinking – that is, to the thing that thinking is “supposed to” do.  I also describe some tags I’m currently using when I remind myself to “really think.” In particular:  * Going slow * Following curiosity/aliveness * Staying in touch with why I’m thinking about something * Tethering my concepts to referents that feel “real” to me * Reminding myself that “arguments are lenses on the world” * Tuning into a relaxing sense of “helplessness” about the truth * Just actually imagining differ
Garrison
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
This is the full text of a post from "The Obsolete Newsletter," a Substack that I write about the intersection of capitalism, geopolitics, and artificial intelligence. I’m a freelance journalist and the author of a forthcoming book called Obsolete: Power, Profit, and the Race to build Machine Superintelligence. Consider subscribing to stay up to date with my work. Wow. The Wall Street Journal just reported that, "a consortium of investors led by Elon Musk is offering $97.4 billion to buy the nonprofit that controls OpenAI." Technically, they can't actually do that, so I'm going to assume that Musk is trying to buy all of the nonprofit's assets, which include governing control over OpenAI's for-profit, as well as all the profits above the company's profit caps. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman already tweeted, "no thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want." (Musk, for his part, replied with just the word: "Swindler.") Even if Altman were willing, it's not clear if this bid could even go through. It can probably best be understood as an attempt to throw a wrench in OpenAI's ongoing plan to restructure fully into a for-profit company. To complete the transition, OpenAI needs to compensate its nonprofit for the fair market value of what it is giving up. In October, The Information reported that OpenAI was planning to give the nonprofit at least 25 percent of the new company, at the time, worth $37.5 billion. But in late January, the Financial Times reported that the nonprofit might only receive around $30 billion, "but a final price is yet to be determined." That's still a lot of money, but many experts I've spoken with think it drastically undervalues what the nonprofit is giving up. Musk has sued to block OpenAI's conversion, arguing that he would be irreparably harmed if it went through. But while Musk's suit seems unlikely to succeed, his latest gambit might significantly drive up the price OpenAI has to pay. (My guess is that Altman will still ma
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
When we built a calculator to help meat-eaters offset the animal welfare impact of their diet through donations (like carbon offsets), we didn't expect it to become one of our most effective tools for engaging new donors. In this post we explain how it works, why it seems particularly promising for increasing support for farmed animal charities, and what you can do to support this work if you think it’s worthwhile. In the comments I’ll also share our answers to some frequently asked questions and concerns some people have when thinking about the idea of an ‘animal welfare offset’. Background FarmKind is a donation platform whose mission is to support the animal movement by raising funds from the general public for some of the most effective charities working to fix factory farming. When we built our platform, we directionally estimated how much a donation to each of our recommended charities helps animals, to show users.  This also made it possible for us to calculate how much someone would need to donate to do as much good for farmed animals as their diet harms them – like carbon offsetting, but for animal welfare. So we built it. What we didn’t expect was how much something we built as a side project would capture peoples’ imaginations!  What it is and what it isn’t What it is:  * An engaging tool for bringing to life the idea that there are still ways to help farmed animals even if you’re unable/unwilling to go vegetarian/vegan. * A way to help people get a rough sense of how much they might want to give to do an amount of good that’s commensurate with the harm to farmed animals caused by their diet What it isn’t:  * A perfectly accurate crystal ball to determine how much a given individual would need to donate to exactly offset their diet. See the caveats here to understand why you shouldn’t take this (or any other charity impact estimate) literally. All models are wrong but some are useful. * A flashy piece of software (yet!). It was built as