pith. sign in

arxiv: 2408.16074 · v2 · pith:FK7L5ALDnew · submitted 2024-08-28 · 💻 cs.CY · cs.AI

Verification methods for international AI agreements

classification 💻 cs.CY cs.AI
keywords methodsverificationagreementsinternationalunauthorizedadvancedrequiresuspected
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

What techniques can be used to verify compliance with international agreements about advanced AI development? In this paper, we examine 10 verification methods that could detect two types of potential violations: unauthorized AI training (e.g., training runs above a certain FLOP threshold) and unauthorized data centers. We divide the verification methods into three categories: (a) national technical means (methods requiring minimal or no access from suspected non-compliant nations), (b) access-dependent methods (methods that require approval from the nation suspected of unauthorized activities), and (c) hardware-dependent methods (methods that require rules around advanced hardware). For each verification method, we provide a description, historical precedents, and possible evasion techniques. We conclude by offering recommendations for future work related to the verification and enforcement of international AI governance agreements.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Hardware-Level Governance of AI Compute: A Feasibility Taxonomy for Regulatory Compliance and Treaty Verification

    cs.CR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Proposes a feasibility taxonomy of 20 hardware-level AI compute governance mechanisms organized by monitoring, verification, and enforcement, with mappings to regulatory scenarios that highlight immaturity of treaty-v...