The AI Readiness Objectives (AROs)

Governments cannot assume they will have time to adapt to AI through slow iterative processes, because AI capabilities are improving very quickly, and the security and economic costs of early policy failures may be unacceptably high. At the same time, despite the large number of expert recommendations on how to govern AI, governments lack guidance on what strategic configurations of interventions will sufficiently address their security and economic interests.

The AROs are a framework governments can use to establish concrete AI readiness targets. AROs define the 7 areas in which adequacy must be defined and achieved, and include a map to valuable resources on the various interventions proposed by experts in each area. These resources are primarily for researchers and other operators developing strategies to support and inform policymakers.

At Convergence Analysis, we are using this framework as a basis for case studies that identify gaps in US preparedness, and propose interventions to patch these gaps. These case studies can then directly support policymakers with specific proposed actions.

Read more about the AROs, our design choices, consultation process and methodology here.

This report primarily is for policy analysts and researchers, to guide project prioritisation; ARO helps thinking about how given interventions fits into a greater endgame, and identifying gaps in existing approaches.

AROs may be useful for a range of stakeholders as an intuitive birds-eye view of the AI Security field, or a framework for building detailed, holistic AI security strategies. Below are some examples:

• Policymakers — Set targets and indicators to hit for each objective by 2030, 2035, etc.
• Policy analysts — Assess a government's AI preparedness by evaluating progress against each objective, identifying implementation gaps, and comparing options for addressing them.
• Legislators & political staff — Quickly understand the landscape of proposed AI governance interventions, with links to example legislative approaches.
• Advocacy organisations — Keep resource prioritization up to date by identifying which objectives are underserved, selecting interventions that advance them, and coordinating with groups pursuing complementary goals.
• Research organisations — Identify promising research agendas, compare alternative pathways to the same objective, and focus effort where evidence or policy proposals are weakest.
• Funders and philanthropies — Allocate funding across objectives to identify neglected areas, and avoid concentrating resources on already well-covered interventions.