Claim and evidence Close ×
Armstrong, Bostrom and Shulman's technical report of 2013 presents a model in which teams racing to build a powerful AI are incentivised to skimp on safety precautions, and in which more teams and more enmity between them increase the danger of an AI disaster. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Stated in source Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source
Date 2013-10 · publication Records dated 2013 → Role Contesting, Earliest located Register (kind of text) Nonfiction Engagement Engages a premise. Models developer incentives directly and finds that the incentive to win pushes precautions down. Scope and limits A stylised game-theoretic model with assumptions the authors state (a powerful AI built by the winning team, a disaster probability rising as precautions fall); it does not measure any developer's incentives.
The evidence 02 primary source Supports the claim
Racing to the Precipice: a Model of Artificial Intelligence Development ↗ FHI Technical Report #2013-1, as served on Bostrom's site (nickbostrom.com/papers/racing.pdf); later published in AI & Society 31 (2016) · 2013-10
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “each team is incentivised to finish first – by skimping on safety precautions if need be.” Location in source Abstract, PDF p. 2
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-31
Source details and check notes Authors Stuart Armstrong; Nick Bostrom; Carl Shulman Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 7107ba4d2245ed5c6522fb061ea118e7b5e0af64c3de1b10b57980b6f0a18e2e). FHI technical report PDF of 2013 (not the 2016 journal version); no archive capture compared. The cross-family check retrieved it again on 2026-10-31, with the same bytes. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-29 Language English (en) Attribution Stuart Armstrong, Nick Bostrom, Carl Shulman, “Racing to the Precipice: a Model of Artificial Intelligence Development”, 2013-10. Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution. Check notes Candidate pack passage, arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI (research/risk-debate). The quotation (15 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. No human editorial review. primary source Supports the claim
Racing to the Precipice: a Model of Artificial Intelligence Development ↗ FHI Technical Report #2013-1, as served on Bostrom's site (nickbostrom.com/papers/racing.pdf); later published in AI & Society 31 (2016) · 2013-10
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Source excerpt “Having extra development teams and extra enmity between teams can increase the danger of an AI-disaster” Location in source Abstract, PDF p. 2
How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher
Machine-checked · 2026-10-31
Source details and check notes Authors Stuart Armstrong; Nick Bostrom; Carl Shulman Version Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 7107ba4d2245ed5c6522fb061ea118e7b5e0af64c3de1b10b57980b6f0a18e2e). FHI technical report PDF of 2013 (not the 2016 journal version); no archive capture compared. The cross-family check retrieved it again on 2026-10-31, with the same bytes. Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-10-29 Language English (en) Attribution Stuart Armstrong, Nick Bostrom, Carl Shulman, “Racing to the Precipice: a Model of Artificial Intelligence Development”, 2013-10. Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution. Check notes Candidate pack passage, arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI (research/risk-debate). The quotation (16 words) matched the text retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29. Matching ignored differences of whitespace, case, quotation marks, dashes and Unicode compatibility forms, so the source’s typography can differ. No human editorial review. Status and meaning Editorial status. Not reviewed by an editor . An exploratory record that no editor has accepted. This status does not say whether a person has read any linked passage. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.
Relation. A passage of the document disputes the proposition or a premise it depends on. The record documents the text’s position, not who is right.
Date. Title page of the FHI technical report; journal version (2016) not read.
Record ID rd-r17-armstrong-2013-racing