I coincidentally submitted an essay describing my ideas for a plan to the Cosmos essay contest just a day before you published your plan. I look forward to writing a post analyzing the similarities and differences between our plans once Cosmos is done with the judging and I can share my plan publicly.
Looking forward to it! (Should rules permit, we're also happy to discuss privately at an earlier date)
Thanks for writing this and proposing a plan. Coincidentally, I drafted a short take here yesterday explaining one complaint I currently have with the safety conditions of this plan. In short, I suspect the “No AIs improving other AIs” criterion isn't worth including within a safety plan: it i) doesn't address that many more marginal threat models (or does so ineffectively) and ii) would be too unpopular to implement (or, alternatively, too weak to be useful).
I think there is a version of this plan with a lower safety tax, with more focus on reactive policy and the other three criterion, that I would be more excited about.
We have published A Narrow Path: our best attempt to draw out a comprehensive plan to deal with AI extinction risk. We propose concrete conditions that must be satisfied for addressing AI extinction risk, and offer policies that enforce these conditions.
A Narrow Path answers the following: assuming extinction risk from AI, what would be a response that actually solves the problem for at least 20 years, and that leads to a stable global situation, one where the response is coordinated rather than unilaterally imposed with all the dangers that come from that.
Despite the magnitude of the problem, we have found no other plan that comprehensively tries to address the issue, so we made one.
This is a complex problem where no one has a full solution, but we need to iterate on better answers if we are to succeed at implementing solutions that directly address the problem.
Executive summary below, full plan at www.narrowpath.co , and thread on X here.