Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper proposes a taxonomy of 20 hardware-level mechanisms for AI compute governance, categorized by function (monitoring, verification, enforcement) and assessed for technical feasibility. It maps these mechanisms onto four governance scenarios (domestic regulation, bilateral agreements, multilateral treaty verification, and industry self-regulation), revealing a mismatch between the maturity of mechanisms and their necessity for treaty verification. The analysis highlights threats like algorithmic efficiency gains and distributed training, and argues for tamper-evident assurance analogous to IAEA verification.
The hardware-level mechanisms most crucial for verifiable AI treaty enforcement, like on-chip compute metering and cryptographic proof-of-training, are also the least technically mature, creating a critical gap in AI governance capabilities.
The governance of frontier AI increasingly relies on controlling access to computational resources, yet the hardware-level mechanisms invoked by policy proposals remain largely unexamined from an engineering perspective. This paper bridges the gap between AI governance and computer engineering by proposing a taxonomy of 20 hardware-level governance mechanisms, organised by function (monitoring, verification, enforcement) and assessed for technical feasibility on a four-point scale from currently deployable to speculative. For each mechanism, we provide a technical description, a feasibility rating, and an identification of adversarial vulnerabilities. We map the taxonomy onto four governance scenarios: domestic regulation, bilateral agreements, multilateral treaty verification, and industry self-regulation. Our analysis reveals a structural mismatch: the mechanisms most needed for treaty verification, including on-chip compute metering, cryptographic proof-of-training, and hardware-embedded enforcement, are also the least mature. We assess principal threats to compute-based governance, including algorithmic efficiency gains, distributed training methods, and sovereignty concerns. We identify a temporal constraint: the window during which semiconductor manufacturing concentration makes hardware-level governance implementable is narrowing, while R&D timelines for critical mechanisms span years. We present an adversary-tiered threat analysis distinguishing commercial, non-state, and nation-state actors, arguing the appropriate security standard is tamper-evident assurance analogous to IAEA verification rather than absolute tamper-proofing. The taxonomy, feasibility classification, and mechanism-to-scenario mapping provide a technical foundation for policymakers and identify the R&D investments required before hardware-level governance can support verifiable international agreements.