BZPEERPapers, people, evidence and research paths
Menu

Discover

SearchFind papers, people, topics, institutions and opportunities from one place.GraphSee how papers, authors, topics and evidence connect.

Research tools

HomeContinue from the papers, people and topics that matter now.CollectionsTurn saved papers into reading lists, evidence maps and shareable context.ResearchReconstruct the path that led you from search to paper to question.CollaborationMove from a paper, topic or expert request into a focused thread.PublishCreate full-text research articles with metadata, formulas and versions.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists whose work and reviews explain why they can help.CommunitiesJoin research groups organized around papers, topics and shared evidence.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations connected to real research context.

Account

Log inReturn to your saved papers, graph views and active threads.Create accountStart saving papers, building a research trail and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Source author record

Matthijs M. Maas

Matthijs M. Maas appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record
cs.CYArtificial Intelligence

Catalog footprint

What is connected

3works
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim
Open graphBrowse works

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2021arXiv

Bridging the Gap: the case for an Incompletely Theorized Agreement on AI policy

Recent progress in artificial intelligence (AI) raises a wide array of ethical and societal concerns. Accordingly, an appropriate policy approach is needed today. While there has been a wave of scholarship in this field, the research community at times appears divided amongst those who emphasize near-term concerns, and those focusing on long-term concerns and corresponding policy measures. In this paper, we seek to map and critically examine this alleged gulf, with a view to understanding the practical space for inter-community collaboration on AI policy. This culminates in a proposal to make use of the legal notion of an incompletely theorized agreement. We propose that on certain issue areas, scholars working with near-term and long-term perspectives can converge and cooperate on selected mutually beneficial AI policy projects all the while maintaining divergent perspectives.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Roadmap to a Roadmap: How Could We Tell When AGI is a 'Manhattan Project' Away?

This paper argues that at a certain point in research toward AGI, the problem may become well-enough theorized that a clear roadmap exists for achieving it, such that a Manhattan Project-like effort could greatly shorten the time to completion. If state actors perceive that this threshold has been crossed, their incentives around openness and international cooperation may shift rather suddenly, with serious implications for AI risks and the stability of international AI governance regimes. The paper characterizes how such a 'runway' period would be qualitatively different from preceding stages of AI research, and accordingly proposes a research program aimed at assessing how close the field of AI is to such a threshold - that is, it calls for the formulation of a 'roadmap to the roadmap.'

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Should Artificial Intelligence Governance be Centralised? Design Lessons from History

Can effective international governance for artificial intelligence remain fragmented, or is there a need for a centralised international organisation for AI? We draw on the history of other international regimes to identify advantages and disadvantages in centralising AI governance. Some considerations, such as efficiency and political power, speak in favour of centralisation. Conversely, the risk of creating a slow and brittle institution speaks against it, as does the difficulty in securing participation while creating stringent rules. Other considerations depend on the specific design of a centralised institution. A well-designed body may be able to deter forum shopping and ensure policy coordination. However, forum shopping can be beneficial and a fragmented landscape of institutions can be self-organising. Centralisation entails trade-offs and the details matter. We conclude with two core recommendations. First, the outcome will depend on the exact design of a central institution. A well-designed centralised regime covering a set of coherent issues could be beneficial. But locking-in an inadequate structure may pose a fate worse than fragmentation. Second, for now fragmentation will likely persist. This should be closely monitored to see if it is self-organising or simply inadequate.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access