A CERN for AI is a distraction; push for an IAEA instead

TL;DR: There are many conceivable versions of a “CERN for AI.” But the version that seems politically realistic (a new catch-up lab) probably would not do much for safety, while the versions that would materially improve safety (e.g., pause + merge of all companies) are probably unrealistic. So I see the CERN idea as a distraction, and not a particularly neglected one. I argue a better path is an international treaty with red lines now, with an IAEA-style verification body next: a sequencing that matches how the EU AI Act, the NPT/IAEA, and the Montreal Protocol actually developed. This is premised on the view that the main bottleneck in AI safety is enforcement and political will, not more R&D. Two premises underlie the rationale below: First, the bottleneck in AI safety is political will and the enforcement of best practices, not more R&D. With enough will, we move from Greenblatt's Plan D toward Plan A , achieving roughly an 80% risk reduction. Of course, the science of AI safety is far from mature, but we are also far from applying the best risk mitigation practices (see also the various other ratings, from SaferAI to FLI’s one) - of course, alignment is not solved, but also, xAI is still releasing Mecha Hitler… We already have sufficient verification mechanisms to get started. What's missing is the decision to use them ( link ). If you reject either premise, you might reach different conclusions. The CERN for AI is a distraction A recurring proposal in AI governance is…