There is no shortage of books or reports on the U.S.-China rivalry, especially as artificial intelligence portends to become a nuclear-like inescapable linchpin of this competition. We recently extensively dealt here with the geopolitical consequences of the AI race as laid bare in the “Super Intelligence Strategy” paper by Eric Schmidt and two executives from Scale AI.
This week, the Center for a New American Security published “Promethean Rivalry” by Bill Drexel. As we have ourselves repeatedly pointed out the shortsightedness of most of the geopolitical digressions on the AI race, we found this work to be groundbreaking as it strives to analyze the world-altering impact of this technological race. In a nutshell, this is not just another technology race between two superpowers. Possibly, we even see a scenario where the AI race is more impactful than the Space Race or the Atomic rivalry at their apex.
The rationale for such a bold assertion of our own is due to the multidimensional stakes of the AI competition, weaving military, economic, geopolitical, and ethical issues. We concur with Bill Drexel when he hammers the fundamental shortcoming of the AI rivalry experts: “While experts have focused on AI’s decisive role in military and economic competition between the two superpowers, they often miss China’s and the United States’ respective approaches to the profound moral and civilizational questions that hang in the balance of their race to AI supremacy.
The paper analyzes four domains and the world-altering affect of the AI rivalry on the four domains: conflict norms (how military conflicts are waged and solved), state power (what is the essence of global superpower and influence in the age of the AI rivalry?), emerging bioethics (the future of medical treatments, genetic engineering, cloning, etc. in an age of acceleration) and catastrophic risks.
In these four instances, the prospect for Sino-American collaboration is limited given China’s diplomatic intransigence, while the disconnect between necessity and feasibility is more troubling.
When we think about possible autonomous warfare, panopticon techno states with surveillance regimes, AI-powered human genetic engineering, or AI malfunctions, we need more human collaboration, but we should not fool ourselves in the West and believe there is a responsible co-pilot with us in the cockpit.
In the meantime, reasserting the U.S. leadership in AI innovation and diffusion (including the diffusion of U.S. AI technology to a maximum of like-minded countries) is the sine qua non condition to avert these risks. Failure in that matter threatens to relinquish control of the global narrative to China’s authoritarian paradigm, inciting a widespread international repudiation of American aspirations in artificial intelligence, and risking the ultimate forfeiture of humanity’s technological destiny to a ruthless and oppressive regime. We believe the new Administration could take a more focused approach to catastrophic AI risks than Democrats. Common sense is once again the rule of the game when it comes to safety and security risks from advanced AI.
Drexel is adamant that only a clear U.S. lead over China’s AI ecosystem will ensure a safe future for mankind. I have advocated a defector’s visa status, like what we did during the Cold War, for Chinese AI researchers who want to join the West to defeat their techno-authoritarian state. The U.S. needs to attract all top AI talents in the coming two years, including from low-growth Europe. I share Drexel’s concerns that direct cooperation with China on catastrophic risks, autonomous killing systems, or genetic engineering has been an illusion. We should leave the door open (it will be used in due time) without being delusional here.
I also believe that the U.S. should use its lead in AI technology to champion its potential and the U.S. Promethean capability to improve the human condition. As exemplified by Vice President JD Vance’s February speech on AI in Paris, we should put forth a positive vision of this technology, grounded on techno-democracy. AI could become the linchpin of a renewed alliance between the U.S. and like-minded countries.
TRUMP RESUMES ATTACKS ON CHINA AFTER IT DENIES NEGOTIATING ON TARIFFS
In a time when NATO has long lost any meaning, I advocate rebuilding our global sphere of influence around a grand technological and economic alliance, leaving only rogue states to the techno-authoritarian model championed by the Chinese. With these countries, and altogether open to a dialogue with China, we could continue our efforts to establish norms on the responsible use of AI in militaries or AI in nuclear command and control.
Although I am less enthralled by CNAS recommendations to establish new ethical bodies or push for a global statement on genetic engineering, I think existing agencies could do more indeed to reassert the ethical leadership of the U.S. in the responsible use of technology in general and AI in particular, versus the techno-authoritarian model of China.
Sebastien Laye is an economist and AI entrepreneur.