Skip to content

Coordination Capacity

Parameter

Coordination Capacity

Importance75
DirectionHigher is better
Current TrendFragile (voluntary commitments exist but lack enforcement)
Key MeasurementCommitment compliance, information sharing, standard adoption
Prioritization
Importance75
Tractability40
Neglectedness45
Uncertainty55

For comprehensive analysis, see International Coordination, which covers:

  • Current coordination status (AISI network, summits, treaties)
  • US-China cooperation prospects
  • Coordination mechanisms effectiveness
  • Historical precedents (Montreal Protocol, nuclear arms control)
  • Scenario analysis and trajectory projections

Coordination Capacity measures the degree to which AI developers, governments, and other stakeholders successfully cooperate on safety standards, information sharing, and development practices. This parameter is closely related to—and largely subsumed by—International Coordination.

Key aspects of coordination capacity include:

  • Voluntary commitments: Seoul, Bletchley declarations (10-30% effectiveness)
  • Information sharing: Currently 10-20% of safety findings shared
  • Standard adoption: 25-40% market share of compliant systems
  • Enforcement mechanisms: Currently minimal (no binding AI treaties with verification)

Low coordination directly increases existential risk through:

  • Racing to dangerous capabilities without collective pause mechanisms
  • Unilateral deployment of inadequately tested systems
  • Regulatory arbitrage undermining safety requirements
  • No global response capability for AI incidents

Research suggests uncoordinated development reduces safety investment by 30-60% compared to coordinated scenarios.


Loading diagram...

Contributes to: Governance Capacity

Primary outcomes affected: