korrents

korrents · piece

Nonproliferation is the wrong approach to AI misuse

Helen Toner · 5 Apr 2025

Others here said this too

Any given AI capability becomes cheap and widely available within a couple of years of first being reached, so nobody can be kept away from it for long.

Their wordsBut with AI, it’s different: it’s often only a couple of years between when you need a world-class computing cluster to do something and when you can run it on a high-end gaming chip on your laptop.

Also said by Eliezer Yudkowsky, Miles Brundage

Read the piece on helentoner.substack.com ↗

5 korrents from this piece ↓

Helen Toner did not write this page.

Every claim below was made in this piece, quoted word for word and numbered in the order the piece makes them, so you can read it there rather than take our word for it. The sentence above each quote is our reading of the claim, not their wording. Each quote was checked against a stored copy of the page at build time; where the two differ, the quote is the fact.

  1. Our reading

    Any given AI capability becomes cheap and widely available within a couple of years of first being reached, so nobody can be kept away from it for long.

    Their wordsBut with AI, it’s different: it’s often only a couple of years between when you need a world-class computing cluster to do something and when you can run it on a high-end gaming chip on your laptop.

  2. Our reading

    Nonproliferation is the wrong frame for AI misuse; the workable strategy is to use the gap before a capability spreads to build defences against it.

    Their wordsWe should think of the gap between frontier models and proliferated models as an adaptation buffer: a limited time window when we know what bad actors will soon be able to use AI for, which gives us a chance to implement defensive measures that increase society’s resilience to the danger.

  3. Our reading

    Delaying the open release of a new capability by months or years is worth doing, even though preventing its spread indefinitely is not.

    Their wordsThe current status quo—where new models that push the frontier are kept private, and openly available equivalents are only released after a lag of months or years—is valuable.

  4. Our reading

    Adapting over time is a workable answer to humans misusing AI and no answer at all to losing control of systems smarter than us.

    Their wordsBut we do not have experience with the kinds of problems we’ll face if we build machines that are smarter and more capable than us, so I feel much less sanguine that an adaptation-based strategy will help us there.

  5. Our reading

    Advocates who argue for restricting AI on misuse grounds while privately fearing takeover end up less credible than if they said what they meant.

    Their wordsBy trying to use misuse as a fig leaf for their real concerns, they end up sounding much less credible than if they just tried to argue for what they actually meant.

Keep reading

The other pieces are the ones whose claims are worded most like this one's. That measures language, not agreement: they may argue the opposite.