# Bridging the Gap: the case for an Incompletely Theorized Agreement on AI policy

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.06110 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.06110/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 7 Jan 2021.

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Voluntary safety commitments provide an escape from over-regulation in AI development](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.03741/) (2021)
- [Negative Human Rights as a Basis for Long-term AI Safety and Regulation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.14788/) (2022)
- [Demanding and Designing Aligned Cognitive Architectures](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.10190/) (2021)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Recent progress in artificial intelligence (AI) raises a wide array of ethical and societal concerns. Accordingly, an appropriate policy approach is needed today. While there has been a wave of scholarship in this field, the research community at times appears divided amongst those who emphasize near-term concerns, and those focusing on long-term concerns and corresponding policy measures. In this paper, we seek to map and critically examine this alleged gulf, with a view to understanding the practical space for inter-community collaboration on AI policy. This culminates in a proposal to make use of the legal notion of an incompletely theorized agreement. We propose that on certain issue areas, scholars working with near-term and long-term perspectives can converge and cooperate on selected mutually beneficial AI policy projects all the while maintaining divergent perspectives.