US-China perspectives on extreme AI risks and global governance

TL;DR

The paper analyzes publicly available statements from US and Chinese policymakers and experts to map discourse on extreme AI risks and global governance. Using a semi-structured approach, it contrasts US emphasis on safety institutes, international standards, and AGI risk assessment with China’s focus on content governance, tiered risk testing, and global governance initiatives. Both sides acknowledge existential and control-related AI risks and advocate for international cooperation, though concrete institutional footprints differ (e.g., US Safety Institute networks vs. China’s governance and content control mechanisms). The study provides a conversational baseline to inform policymakers and catalyze dialogue or agreements on global AI safety and governance, while noting limitations due to scope and public-source bias.

Abstract

The United States and China will play an important role in navigating safety and security challenges relating to advanced artificial intelligence. We sought to better understand how experts in each country describe safety and security threats from advanced artificial intelligence, extreme risks from AI, and the potential for international cooperation. Specifically, we compiled publicly-available statements from major technical and policy leaders in both the United States and China. We focused our analysis on advanced forms of artificial intelligence, such as artificial general intelligence (AGI), that may have the most significant impacts on national and global security. Experts in both countries expressed concern about risks from AGI, risks from intelligence explosions, and risks from AI systems that escape human control. Both countries have also launched early efforts designed to promote international cooperation around safety standards and risk management practices. Notably, our findings only reflect information from publicly available sources. Nonetheless, our findings can inform policymakers and researchers about the state of AI discourse in the US and China. We hope such work can contribute to policy discussions around advanced AI, its global security threats, and potential international dialogues or agreements to mitigate such threats.