ControlAI - Designing the DIP

# Designing the DIP

The [development of superintelligence](https://controlai.com/risks) is the greatest threat to the continued existence of our species. To secure a good future for humanity, we need an effective plan to stop the development of superintelligence.

Unfortunately, existing plans are inadequate — they address only parts of the problem, and do so secretively, slowly, and undemocratically.

To solve this, we have developed [the Direct Institutional Plan (DIP)](https://controlai.com/dip). It applies the principles outlined in our book [A Narrow Path](https://www.narrowpath.co/), to prevent the development of superintelligence and keep humanity in control.

In designing [the DIP](https://controlai.com/dip), we have identified four essential properties of an effective plan:

- **Strategic**

  - Addresses the entire problem rather than focusing on limited components
- **Public**

  - Operates with transparency about both strategy and beliefs
- **Scalable**

  - Effectively utilizes additional resources instead of stagnating or deteriorating with growth
- **Democratic**

  - Strengthens and leverages democratic institutions instead of concentrating power

For each criterion, we show its importance, detail how existing plans fail at them, and then explain how the design of [the DIP](https://controlai.com/dip) ensures that this criterion is satisfied.

Taken together, these principles outline an approach to effective plans that applies beyond just addressing risks from superintelligence. An approach based on the basic principles of civic engagement: honestly and openly informing all relevant actors in the democratic process, and equipping them to take their own stance on the issue.

# Strategic

An effective plan is strategic: it addresses the entire problem end-to-end, rather than focusing only on a small subset. A strategic plan should, if executed successfully, solve the entire problem it seeks to address.

Non-strategic plans typically address only part of the problem and neglect the rest. Consider AI evaluation organizations like [METR](https://metr.org/about), whose plans follow this pattern:

1. Develop tests to detect dangerous AI behaviors

2. Improve these tests

3. At some point, hopefully, the tests successfully detect AIs showing very dangerous behavior.

4. Share this information with some relevant entity (a government or a company), and hope that entity will take some unspecified action. End of the plan.


Even if such a plan was executed perfectly (and the astounding lack of reliability of even the most basic evaluations suggests otherwise), it would not prevent extinction risk from superintelligence.

Even if these evaluations successfully identify dangerous AI behaviors, they do not establish mechanisms to ensure that this information leads to appropriate action, nor do they identify the concrete appropriate actions needed to put in place that would curtail the risks. Detection without enforcement is insufficient. There i

... (truncated, 15 KB total)