Nuclear Arms Control Verification and Lessons for AI Treaties
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Security risks from AI have motivated calls for international agreements that guardrail the technology. However, even if states could agree on what rules to set on AI, the problem of verifying compliance might make these agreements infeasible. To help clarify the difficulty of verifying agreements on AIunicodex2013and identify actions that might reduce this difficultyunicodex2013this report examines the case study of verification in nuclear arms control. We review the implementation, track records, and politics of verification across three types of nuclear arms control agreements. Then, we consider implications for the case of AI, especially AI development that relies on thousands of highly specialized chips. In this context, the case study suggests that, with certain preparations, the foreseeable challenges of verification would be reduced to levels that were successfully managed in nuclear arms control. To avoid even worse challenges, substantial preparations are needed: (1) developing privacy-preserving, secure, and acceptably priced methods for verifying the compliance of hardware, given inspection access; and (2) building an initial, incomplete verification system, with authorities and precedents that allow its gaps to be quickly closed if and when the political will arises.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 8 Apr 2023.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 3; 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
6 papers.
- 2024Verification methods for international AI agreementscited by 10
- 2023International Governance of Civilian AI: A Jurisdictional Certification Approachcited by 8
- 2025Trends in AI Supercomputerscited by 4
- 2023Taking control: Policies to address extinction risks from advanced AIcited by 3
- 2023Multinational AGI Consortium (MAGIC): A Proposal for International Coordination on AIcited by 1
- 2026International Agreements to Limit Frontier AI: Objectives and Exitcited by 0
- 2026International Agreements to Limit Frontier AI: Objectives and Exit19 Jun 2026
- 2025Trends in AI Supercomputers22 Apr 2025
- 2024Verification methods for international AI agreements28 Aug 2024
- 2023Taking control: Policies to address extinction risks from advanced AI31 Oct 2023
- 2023Multinational AGI Consortium (MAGIC): A Proposal for International Coordination on AI13 Oct 2023
- 2023International Governance of Civilian AI: A Jurisdictional Certification Approach29 Aug 2023
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Verifying International Agreements on AI: Six Layers of Verification for Rules on Large-Scale AI Development and Deployment
- 2026The Open-Box Fallacy: Why AI Deployment Needs a Calibrated Verification Regime
- 2026Overcoming the Regulatory Bottleneck via Agent-to-Agent Protocols: A Nuclear Case Study
- 2026AI Trust OS -- A Continuous Governance Framework for Autonomous AI Observability and Zero-Trust Compliance in Enterprise Environments
- 2026Cryptographic certificates of validity for trustworthy AI
- 2025Security practices in AI development
- 2026A Black Box for Agentic Processes: Blockchain-Anchored Evidence for AI Agent Communication, Human Oversight, and GRC Audits
- 2026Transparency as Architecture: Structural Compliance Gaps in EU AI Act Article 50 II