The CERN for AI is a distraction

A recurring proposal in AI governance is to build a “CERN for AI”^[1]. The CERN pitch is seductive. "Let's build together!" That's sexier than "we need to ban." You can leverage historical analogies (CERN for physics, NASA) and talk about national interest and science. It sounds like the smarter, more sophisticated play.^[1]

But I think that there are many problems with it.

What do you even mean by CERN?

Are you asking for:

• a) pausing AI development at OpenAI, etc.. and on top of this pause, creating a new institution that conducts ALL the frontier development? Let's be clear: this will never happen unless you explicitly ask for a pause. And by default, the US and US CEOs will push extremely hard against handing off their power in this way. Push for (a) without saying 'pause' and you'll get (b) by default:
• b) a new lab that tries to catch up to frontier labs. But this new lab, trying to catch up, is not reducing risks. Also, every state's attempt at frontier LLMs has been 2-3 generations behind the labs. The comparative advantage of states isn't racing frontier labs. It's regulating them. A CERN asks states to do the one thing they're worst at. A CERN-for-AI in Europe today would most likely look like a new Mistral.
• c) or maybe you want to create a literal CERN, i.e., a pure research center, which would not necessarily create frontier models? But there is already plenty of research that companies are ignoring. I believe the bottleneck is currently enforcement and binding regulation. A research center without enforcement teeth doesn't shift industry incentives.

To be honest, I’m a bit tired of the organizations that really do believe that we might lose control in potentially a few months or years, but who are just asking for a research center.^[2] If what you ultimately want is to mitigate AI risks, say it, and don't play 4D chess.

1. ^{^}

   Even Demis Hassabis, one year ago, said: "At some point in the future, we'll need a CERN for AGI for international coordination on safety research." Here are a few other examples (CGF, SI, aitreaty.org, Brundage).

2. ^{^}

   Many people pushing for a CERN have European sovereignty in mind. To be fair, I think that Europe should wake up to the importance of AI. But there are so many ways to do it in a more effective way:

   • If what you want is sovereignty, the easiest version is to package open source models that are currently just 4 months behind the frontier - not train frontier models from scratch that are 3 generations behind!
   • If you want safety: enforce the AI act, and serve as a diplomatic power to get safety on the world scene.
   • If you want to fund a moonshot for alignment, I’m very skeptical this is the most direct route
   • If you want to strengthen your industry, prepare for physical AI and robotics