Thank you, these are all good points. There are clearly some assumptions that I see should have been made explicit.
The U.S. government gives a clear priority to the race for global AI dominance. I wouldn’t go as far as saying this effort has clear bipartisan support, but even the Democrats have a preference for retaining influence in the area.
I see a contrast between that appetite for AI dominance and the actual policies. Multilateralism has historically been an effective tool in building and supporting U.S. influence, and it is being heavily underused in this case.
Would the U.S. dominance be a good thing? That is a complex matter. But I do see how my writing makes it look like I think the U.S.-led order would be the positive outcome by default. I don’t think it is, but that would be a separate post.
Come to think of it, the proper title would be “Why is the U.S. bent on missing its AI Bretton Woods moment?”, because I am interested in how sucha a decision is made. Yes, it is just one example of the general trend of transactionalism replacing long-term influence-building under the Trump leadership. I still find it fascinating, though.
Why is United States dominance over global affairs a good thing? The article takes it as given but it’s not clear to me that it’s true.
Is increasing US influence over global AI governance a good EA cause? If so, why?
I’m sort of confused about exactly what policy recommendations this article is making.
Thank you, these are all good points. There are clearly some assumptions that I see should have been made explicit.
The U.S. government gives a clear priority to the race for global AI dominance. I wouldn’t go as far as saying this effort has clear bipartisan support, but even the Democrats have a preference for retaining influence in the area.
I see a contrast between that appetite for AI dominance and the actual policies. Multilateralism has historically been an effective tool in building and supporting U.S. influence, and it is being heavily underused in this case.
Would the U.S. dominance be a good thing? That is a complex matter. But I do see how my writing makes it look like I think the U.S.-led order would be the positive outcome by default. I don’t think it is, but that would be a separate post.
Come to think of it, the proper title would be “Why is the U.S. bent on missing its AI Bretton Woods moment?”, because I am interested in how sucha a decision is made. Yes, it is just one example of the general trend of transactionalism replacing long-term influence-building under the Trump leadership. I still find it fascinating, though.