Expanding the Circle: How Non-U.S. Residents Can Influence AI Safety
Coverage of lessw-blog
A recent discussion on LessWrong challenges the US-centric view of AI safety, outlining specific pathways for global contributors to shape technical governance and national policy.
In a recent post, lessw-blog discusses the often-overlooked potential for individuals residing outside major AI hubs-specifically the United States-to meaningfully contribute to AI safety and governance. While the current AI landscape is dominated by labs and legislative bodies in the U.S., U.K., and China, the source argues that high-impact work is not exclusive to these geographies.
The narrative surrounding Artificial Intelligence development often centers heavily on a few geographic strongholds. This concentration of compute, talent, and capital can create a sense of disenfranchisement for researchers and policy advocates residing elsewhere. However, as AI systems scale, their impact-and the regulatory frameworks required to manage them-will be inherently global. The post contends that the assumption that one must be physically present in the Bay Area to effect change is increasingly outdated, identifying two primary avenues where location is secondary to output: public technical governance research and national policy advocacy.
Regarding technical governance, the post suggests that while model training requires massive infrastructure found in U.S. labs, the research required to govern those models often does not. This field involves answering "tough technical questions" regarding verification, compute monitoring, and safety standards. The author posits that this area offers "low-hanging fruit" because it is less saturated than direct alignment research. External researchers can contribute significantly by developing the theoretical and technical frameworks that policymakers will eventually need to implement. The post notes that organizations like MIRI have technical governance teams that value this specific type of inquiry, which can largely be conducted remotely.
On the policy front, the post challenges the notion that only superpowers matter. It references an "AI wargame" scenario to illustrate how smaller nations or blocs (like the EU) can exert disproportionate influence. In the simulation described, policies enacted by the EU were initially ignored by major players but became the deciding factor in the endgame. This suggests that robust national policies in smaller jurisdictions can serve as global precedents or critical safety valves during crises. By establishing rigorous local standards, non-U.S. advocates can create regulatory pressure that ripples outward to the major labs.
For professionals and researchers outside the U.S., this post serves as a strategic guide to high-leverage work that does not require relocation. It underscores that the ecosystem for AI safety is broader than the physical locations of the leading labs and that intellectual contributions to governance structures are urgently needed regardless of origin.
Read the full post on LessWrong
Key Takeaways
- Geography is not a hard barrier to contributing to AI safety; high-leverage work exists outside the U.S.
- Public technical governance research is an under-saturated field that addresses critical questions without requiring access to massive compute.
- National policy in smaller nations can have outsized global effects, as demonstrated by wargame scenarios where EU policies became critical end-game factors.
- Remote contributions to technical governance are viable and necessary to solve verification and monitoring challenges.