It's hard to argue with the core premise: once a technology is seen as a lever of power, the idea of global restraint becomes wishful thinking. States don’t handicap themselves out of goodwill; they act to survive and stay ahead. The dream of a "pause" in AI development runs straight into the brick wall of strategic rivalry. China’s not waiting, the U.S. isn’t slowing, and nobody wants to be the one holding the ethics banner while someone else builds the smarter missle.
That said, the challenge isn't getting states to be noble; it’s making cooperation serve their intrests. Arms control in the Cold War didn't happen because anyone trusted each other; it happened because the alternative was mutual suicide. Maybe that’s the hope here too: that the tech gets so dangerous, even the hawks blink.
But until then? The trajectory looks like more militarised AI, not less.
It's hard to argue with the core premise: once a technology is seen as a lever of power, the idea of global restraint becomes wishful thinking. States don’t handicap themselves out of goodwill; they act to survive and stay ahead. The dream of a "pause" in AI development runs straight into the brick wall of strategic rivalry. China’s not waiting, the U.S. isn’t slowing, and nobody wants to be the one holding the ethics banner while someone else builds the smarter missle.
That said, the challenge isn't getting states to be noble; it’s making cooperation serve their intrests. Arms control in the Cold War didn't happen because anyone trusted each other; it happened because the alternative was mutual suicide. Maybe that’s the hope here too: that the tech gets so dangerous, even the hawks blink.
But until then? The trajectory looks like more militarised AI, not less.
I agree, very useful comment.