I'm skeptical about creating multiple centralized AI safety institutes across different regions. While this approach might seem to address some concerns about diversity, it still carries significant drawbacks: 1. Resource competition: Multiple large institutes could lead to unnecessary duplication of efforts and wasteful competition for limited resources, researchers, and funding. 2. Regional biases: Having separate institutes in different regions might actually reinforce regional biases and approaches rather than fostering true global collaboration. 3. Coordination challenges: With multiple centers, we'd face increased coordination difficulties, potentially leading to fragmented research agendas and inconsistent safety standards. 4. Geopolitical tensions: Regional institutes could become pawns in geopolitical power struggles, hindering open collaboration and information sharing. 5. Overlooking smaller players: This approach might still marginalize smaller countries and institutions not directly associated with these major regional hubs. Instead of creating a few large institutes, I believe we should focus on building flexible, decentralized networks that can adapt more quickly to the rapidly evolving AI landscape while truly leveraging global diversity in thinking and approaches.

Thank you for your suggestion, Hec. A few regional institutes could indeed be a practical approach, balancing centralized coordination with the need to maintain diverse perspectives and agile responses across different regions. This could help foster global cooperation while addressing the unique challenges and strengths of various parts of the world.