Verifying AI compute

Technology to verify how AI systems are developed and used, enabling safe, rapid AI innovation and diffusion, and enabling domestic or international agreements.

Why this is a top priority

AI compute verification uses hardware and software tools to check claims about how AI systems are developed and used, without taking anyone’s word for it. This can enable safe, rapid AI innovation and wider adoption by strengthening trust and security. For example, users could verify that they are interacting with the model they were promised, that it passed particular evaluations, and that specified safeguards are in place. Developers could demonstrate these properties without exposing their model weights, training data, or other sensitive information.

Verification could also enable mutually beneficial agreements between AI companies or countries to avoid specific high-risk activities or apply specific safeguards. Competitive pressure can make it difficult for any one company or country to adopt costly safeguards on its own. Verification would give each party stronger grounds to trust that others are adhering to the agreement. Without it, such deals may be impossible, or may rely on blunt rules that stifle AI progress.

But verification technology is not yet mature. Some applications, like confirming which model someone is interacting with, are closer to deployment. Others, like checking how a rival is using its data centers, are much further off. Turning promising approaches into deployable systems requires expensive hardware, adversarial testing, and collaboration across the AI industry. Much of this work is too far from commercialization for industry to solve alone. Accelerating compute verification R&D to keep pace with AI capabilities will require a step-change in government’s, philanthropy’s, and industry’s efforts.

What should be done

Private sector: funders, founders, and AI companies

  • Launch a Focused Research Organization for hardware verification R&D: A Focused Research Organization could bring together hardware, software, and security experts to build verification capabilities into the AI hardware stack. A roughly $30 million, three-year program would target working prototypes and open specifications that industry could adopt. See the full proposal.
  • Philanthropists should fund verification prize competitions: These can range from lightweight prizes for well-specified problems, such as identifying workloads from telemetry and zero-knowledge proofs for AI workloads, to an adversarial grand challenge. In the grand challenge, teams would receive hardware access and R&D budgets, enter into mock agreements about compute use, and compete to detect violations or evade detection. Learn more.
  • AI companies and cloud operators should supply hardware testbeds: Access to advanced AI hardware is a bottleneck to prototyping verification technology. Companies should contribute hardware to shared testbeds, giving research teams direct access to prototype, tamper with, and even break verification components. Learn more.
  • AI companies, hyperscalers, and nonprofit partners should build a pilot verifiable data center: A pilot data center would prove individual components can work successfully in a complete system. It would also test whether frontier workloads can run with verification at acceptable cost, with red-teaming by the Intelligence Community and other security experts to identify ways to evade the safeguards. Learn more.
  • Funders should invest now in near-term verification technology that can be ready in a few months’ time: A few million dollars can cover the robust development of AI auditor agents, software-only verification schemes, and tamper-evident hardware that would support any later architecture. Details forthcoming.

Public sector: government agencies and Congress

  • CAISSI should co-lead an AI Verification Consortium (AIVEC) with industry: The Center for Advancing Innovation and Standards for Super Intelligence (CAISSI) should bring together government, industry, and philanthropy to define verification targets and deadlines, fund technical teams, coordinate testbed procurement, launch prizes, and oversee pilot deployments. The AIVEC would provide a common roadmap and be responsible for delivering on that roadmap. Learn more.
  • DARPA and NSF should set up verification R&D programs: DARPA should develop complete prototypes that are highly resistant to adversarial exploitation. NSF should fund the underlying science, including research that requires infrastructure beyond the reach of individual university labs, and fund early-stage verification startups through Small Business Innovation Research grants. These complementary programs would draw on DARPA’s national security expertise and NSF’s scientific networks. Learn more.
  • US intelligence agencies should develop means of identifying hidden data centers in rival countries: Even with strong verification technology, counterparties could still defect on their agreements by only performing prohibited activities on hidden data centers. Intelligence agencies should improve their visibility into where foreign competitors have large quantities of compute and how they use it. Learn more.
  • Policymakers should create the legal room for AI companies to coordinate: A narrow antitrust safe harbor for safety and security collaboration or a supervised self-regulatory organization would allow rival companies to run confidence-building exercises without antitrust exposure. Learn more.

Get in touch

If you are a grantmaker, entrepreneur, or policymaker interested in accelerating progress in AI verification, get in touch by emailing verification.tls@ifp.org. We are not able to reply to all requests, but we read them all.

You can join our talent database to work on AI verification here. We will use this database if we ever headhunt for talent to found or be an early employee in organizations working on this issue.

Join our Launch Sequence mailing list here to receive new proposals, important updates, and occasional opportunities straight to your inbox.

Project proposals and strategy research