Superintelligence and the Triple Risk of an AI Race

This paper uses game theory to argue that, contrary to the prevailing view, a moratorium on Artificial Superintelligence (ASI) can be in a state's self-interest. By formalizing trategic interactions between geopolitical superpowers, we model the trade-off between the benefits of technological supremacy and the catastrophic risks of uncontrolled ASI. The analysis reveals that as the perceived cost of loss of control increases sufficiently relative to other parameters, it becomes in each state's self-interest to impose a moratorium. We further provide empirical evidence suggesting that the global perception of ASI risk is rising, making a stable, rational moratorium increasingly plausible in the current geopolitical landscape.

Technological races create tension between speed and safety: actors may gain by moving faster than competitors, even when risky development is harmful. This is prominent in debates about artificial intelligence (AI), where competitive pressure is often argued to incentivise riskier, less safety-conscious development. We study this using a framed behavioural experiment based on an idealised AI race, in which paired participants repeatedly chose between Safe and Unsafe development under an uncertain time horizon. Unsafe development gave faster progress and higher immediate payoffs but accumulated private risk up to a treatment-specific maximum of 10%, 60%, or 90%; the race's competitive structure was held constant, and only this maximum risk varied. Neither the pre-registered comparison between risk levels nor the role of elicited risk preferences was supported by the data. Instead, exploratory analyses motivated by the task's repeated structure show that Unsafe behaviour is shaped less by risk preferences than by the evolving strategic state of the race: participants are more likely to choose Unsafe after their opponent does so, being ahead reduces Unsafe play while falling behind increases it, and first-round choices predict later behaviour. To interpret these effects we introduce a reduced evolutionary model with four strategies -- Always Safe, Always Unsafe, Conditionally Safe, and Conditionally Antisocial Safe -- which reproduces the treatment effect and shows how conditional Unsafe behaviour can be favoured by competitive race dynamics. Together, the experiment and model show that unsafe development can emerge from early behavioural momentum, opponent behaviour, and fear of falling behind, rather than from risk preferences alone, suggesting policy should focus on reducing competitive pressure and promoting cooperation in AI development rather than only individual risk.

An AI development race creates a multi-agent safety dilemma. Each company can develop slowly and safely, or move faster while taking a risk that may remove its final reward. We use this repeated game to study strategic safety behaviour among large language model (LLM) agents in races with two to five players. However, a valid action does not show that an agent understands the game. We therefore place an audit gate before behavioural interpretation. We first verify the game engine, then test rule recall, state tracking, payoff calculation, and stability under different but equivalent task descriptions. We then compare LLM action sequences with an evolutionary game-theory benchmark and published human data, and explore differences across models, risk conditions, personas, and two- to five-player races. The audit shows that strong rule recall can coexist with weak state tracking and expected-payoff calculation. Providing verified arithmetic and changing the response representation can also change later actions, even when the game rules stay fixed. Across seven tested model endpoints, aggregate rates hide large differences in action sequences, responses to opponents, and responses to race position. Patterns across the tested three- to five-player races are also model-specific rather than a single effect of adding competitors. These results show why multi-agent AI-race simulations need validity checks and trajectory-level analysis before their outputs are described as strategic, human-like, or safety-aware. Our findings are exploratory and apply only to the tested models, prompts, and decoding settings.