  Using a model in which agents compete to develop a potentially dangerous new
technology (AI), we study how changes in the pricing of factors of production
(computational resources) affect agents' strategies, particularly their
spending on safety meant to reduce the danger from the new technology. In the
model, agents split spending between safety and performance, with safety
determining the probability of a ``disaster" outcome, and performance
determining the agents' competitiveness relative to their peers. For given
parameterizations, we determine the theoretically optimal spending strategies
by numerically computing Nash equilibria. Using this approach we find that (1)
in symmetric scenarios, compute price increases are safety-promoting if and
only if the production of performance scales faster than the production of
safety; (2) the probability of a disaster can be made arbitrarily low by
providing a sufficiently large subsidy to a single agent; (3) when agents
differ in productivity, providing a subsidy to the more productive agent is
often better for aggregate safety than providing the same subsidy to other
agent(s) (with some qualifications, which we discuss); (4) when one agent is
much more safety-conscious, in the sense of believing that safety is more
difficult to achieve, relative to his competitors, subsidizing that agent is
typically better for aggregate safety than subsidizing its competitors;
however, subsidizing an agent that is only somewhat more safety-conscious often
decreases safety. Thus, although subsidizing a much more safety-conscious, or
productive, agent often improves safety as intuition suggests, subsidizing a
somewhat more safety-conscious or productive agent can often be harmful.
