Expert Panel Evaluation Results
The following models were evaluated by 229 expert respondents from 65 countries in the Millennium Project Phase 2 AGI Governance Research. Effectiveness ratings represent the percentage of respondents rating each model as "very effective" or "effective."
Multi-stakeholder body (TransInstitution) operating in partnership with artificial narrow intelligences (ANI), each ANI implementing specific governance functions. Continual feedback loops connect technical implementations to human decision-makers and national AGI governance agencies.
Key Characteristics
- Human governance bodies make strategic decisions
- ANI systems implement specific governance requirements
- Continuous feedback mechanisms inform human decision-makers
- National agencies retain authority within jurisdictions
- Scalable from institutional to global level
Advantages
- Preserves human agency in all critical decisions
- Technical systems support rather than replace governance
- Flexible institutional design enabling adaptation
- Clear lines of accountability to human decision-makers
Implementation Challenges
- Requires effective coordination between human and ANI components
- Depends on high-quality feedback loop design
- Demands institutional capacity for rapid decision-making
UN AGI Agency serving as primary coordinating body with governance functions distributed across existing multilateral institutions: ITU (technical standards), WTO (trade implications), and UNDP (development considerations). Leverages institutional expertise while establishing specialized AGI coordination.
Key Characteristics
- UN AGI Agency provides primary coordination
- Existing multilateral institutions handle specialized functions
- Treaty framework provides legal authority
- National governments retain licensing authority
- Aligns with established international governance structures
Advantages
- Builds on existing multilateral institutions
- Leverages established enforcement mechanisms
- Familiar governance structures for most nations
- Enables broad international participation
Implementation Challenges
- Requires new UN treaty negotiation and ratification
- Institutional coordination complexity
- Bureaucratic processes may slow decision-making
- May encounter resistance from permanent UN members
Distributed AGI development without centralized ownership, similar to Internet governance. Coordination through open standards, interoperability frameworks, and networks like SingularityNet. Many developers and organizations participate while maintaining architectural coherence through protocol standards.
Key Characteristics
- No single entity controls AGI development
- Coordination through open standards and protocols
- Many independent developers participate
- Decentralized governance structures (similar to Internet standards bodies)
- Emphasis on interoperability and technical compatibility
Advantages
- Prevents dangerous concentration of AGI capabilities
- Leverages distributed innovation and expertise
- Lower institutional overhead
- Alignment with Internet governance success
Implementation Challenges
- Difficulty ensuring safety standards across distributed systems
- Monitoring and oversight complexity
- Coordination challenges during crises
- Potential for capability concentration despite decentralization intent
Centralized management of powerful AI training and inference computing infrastructure in limited international centers operating under international treaty. Provides symmetric access rights to all signatory nations while enabling resource optimization and capability monitoring.
Key Characteristics
- Powerful compute resources in internationally supervised centers
- Treaty framework granting symmetric access rights
- Single point of monitoring for advanced AGI training
- Centralized resource allocation and scheduling
- International technical oversight of compute usage
Advantages
- Enables comprehensive capability monitoring
- Prevents arms race in compute infrastructure
- Ensures symmetrical access for all parties
- Centralizes security and safety oversight
Implementation Challenges
- Requires unprecedented international consensus on resource sharing
- Potential bottlenecks in compute allocation
- Complex international coordination requirements
- Conflict with national security interests in some jurisdictions
Key Governance Requirements Across Models
While models differ in institutional structure, expert consensus identifies common requirements that all effective governance systems must address:
Technical Oversight
Embedded mechanisms for continuous audit of AGI development and deployment. Modular safety mechanisms enabling selective system shutdown without full operational collapse.
Transparency Requirements
Open-source code frameworks where security permits. Explainability mechanisms for high-risk system decisions. Regular auditability and public disclosure protocols adapted to institutional context.
Accountability Structures
Human oversight mechanisms for critical decisions. Quality management systems across development lifecycle. Authorized representatives responsible for compliance at organizational level.
International Coordination
Harmonized licensing standards where possible. Mutual recognition agreements enabling enforcement coordination. Dispute resolution mechanisms for transnational issues.
Capability Monitoring
Continuous assessment of AGI system capabilities and emergence of novel behaviors. Early warning systems for concerning capability development. Escalation protocols triggered by defined thresholds.
Reversibility Safeguards
Governance decisions structured to permit reversal or modification based on evidence. Adaptive regulatory frameworks evolving with understanding. Documentation of decision rationales and assumptions.
Comparative Analysis Framework
Institutional Complexity
TransInstitution Model: Moderate complexity, flexible institutional design
Multi-Agency UN Model: High complexity, established structures
Decentralized Model: Lower formal complexity, coordination through protocols
Compute Governance Model: High complexity, unprecedented coordination requirements
Implementation Timeline
TransInstitution Model: Can pilot within 1-2 years, scale progressively
Multi-Agency UN Model: 3-5 years for treaty negotiation and implementation
Decentralized Model: Gradual emergence, 2-3 years to establish standards
Compute Governance Model: 5+ years requiring unprecedented international agreement
Scalability & Flexibility
TransInstitution Model: Highly scalable, adapts to different institutional contexts
Multi-Agency UN Model: Moderate scalability, constrained by institutional structures
Decentralized Model: Naturally scalable, grows through network effects
Compute Governance Model: Scalable in principle, but requires continuous coordination
Expert Recommendations
Analysis of expert panel comments suggests potential hybrid approaches combining strengths of multiple models:
Recommended Approach
Begin with TransInstitution model as foundational structure, incorporating elements of Multi-Agency UN model for international coordination and Decentralized model principles for technical standards. Reserve Compute Governance model as potential advanced mechanism if AGI development accelerates beyond other governance capacity.
Phased Implementation Strategy
- Phase 1 (0-2 years): Establish foundational TransInstitution governance within leading research institutions and early adopter nations
- Phase 2 (2-5 years): Scale to regional coordination and formalize through international agreements incorporating UN multi-agency approach
- Phase 3 (5+ years): Adapt based on AGI development outcomes, potentially incorporating decentralized standards and compute governance elements