AI alignment funding or regulation?

The ongoing debate between increasing AI alignment funding versus strengthening AI regulation represents a critical junction in humanity’s approach to managing artificial superintelligence (ASI) risks and development.

Core challenges: The path to surviving ASI development presents two main options: either successfully aligning/controlling ASI or preventing its creation indefinitely.

• Alignment success depends on having both sufficient trained experts and adequate time to solve complex technical challenges
• A rough mathematical model suggests that doubling available time creates twice as much progress, while doubling the number of experts only increases progress by about 1.4 times
• Prevention requires unprecedented global cooperation and sustained technological restraint across all nations

Current landscape: The financial disparity between AI safety and AI development spending reveals significant challenges in both approaches.

• AI safety spending remains relatively modest at $0.1-0.2 billion annually
• Major tech companies are investing approximately $235 billion yearly in AI infrastructure
• Total U.S. AI spending is estimated at around $300 billion annually, with rapid growth projected

Regulatory challenges: Implementing effective AI regulation faces substantial economic and political hurdles.

• Delaying AI progress by 10 years could cost tech companies an estimated $5 trillion in expected value
• Major stakeholders actively resist regulation and have considerable political influence
• International cooperation between competing powers like the U.S. and China presents additional complications

Funding perspective: Increasing alignment funding offers a potentially more achievable path forward.

• Raising annual AI alignment spending from $0.2 billion to $1.6 billion represents a relatively modest increase compared to other government expenditures
• Early investment helps build expertise and raises the “Overton window” for future alignment spending
• Current funding levels are minimal compared to the U.S. military budget of $800 billion annually

Strategic implications: While both increased regulation and funding deserve attention, the relative ease of implementing funding changes suggests a practical starting point.

• Creating permanent ASI prevention mechanisms would require unprecedented global cooperation
• No world leader has yet demonstrated willingness to make serious sacrifices over AI risk
• The AI alignment community can pursue both funding increases and regulatory measures simultaneously

Looking ahead: The path forward likely requires a multi-pronged approach that leverages both funding and regulation, rather than treating them as mutually exclusive options. Success may depend on finding ways to balance immediate practical steps with longer-term strategic goals.