Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
It is concluded that UDCs are a comparatively unlikely evasion route relative to underground or industrially disguised land-based facilities, but the residual risk is non-zero and warrants operationalising the detection modalities discussed.
Proposals for international agreements that limit frontier AI development depend on verification, and a central challenge is detecting undeclared compute facilities used to evade restrictions. Underwater data centers (UDCs) have been suggested as one such evasion vector, but their feasibility at frontier scale and their detectability have not been seriously assessed. We examine current UDC deployments, evaluate construction and maintenance complexity relative to land-based facilities, and analyse the feasibility of a 100,000 H100-equivalent training run underwater. We find that power delivery and cooling are tractable, but interconnect and the hands-on maintenance that large training runs require are severe obstacles - surmountable only by a well-resourced state actor accepting large cost and schedule penalties, and only where concealment, rather than efficiency, is the objective. We then assess detectability through thermal, acoustic, optical and synthetic-aperture-radar (SAR) surveillance. Thermal detection of an operational pod is unlikely outside shallow, calm water; acoustic detection is marginally more effective, but faces limitations in attribution; and optical/SAR monitoring is most powerful during construction and maintenance, when the pressure-vessel fabrication base and the cable-laying fleet create distinctive signatures for AIS-tracking. We conclude that UDCs are a comparatively unlikely evasion route relative to underground or industrially disguised land-based facilities, but the residual risk is non-zero and warrants operationalising the detection modalities discussed.
