This argument neglects the option of racing -with-plausible-deniability. I would argue that both the US and China are already doing this. We haven’t gone to war yet.
Is ‘Stargate’ not racing?
Many have argued that nationalizing the major AI companies would substantially slow down progress because of bureaucratic overhead, reorganization costs, loss of immigrant personnel, and stifling of creativity.
If this were my working model of the world, and I wanted to help the US win the race I might:
Invest in on-shoring the means of production for the AI vertical (in progress)
Invest in expanding supporting infrastructure (in progress)
Place plausibly state-disconnected but trusted people in positions of power, like board seats (some done, some in progress).
Award lucrative military contracts for not-explicitly-offensive-purposes. (Some done, probably more in progress).
Bring heads of the major labs to the head of government for secret meetings, and establish close working relationships (done, and on going).
Place secret operatives and surveillance tech within the key companies (unobservable unless caught).
Place restrictions on export of key materials and technological information (done and on going).
Create a national government org explicitly to monitor progress in AI (done).
This argument neglects the option of racing -with-plausible-deniability. I would argue that both the US and China are already doing this. We haven’t gone to war yet.
Is ‘Stargate’ not racing?
Many have argued that nationalizing the major AI companies would substantially slow down progress because of bureaucratic overhead, reorganization costs, loss of immigrant personnel, and stifling of creativity.
If this were my working model of the world, and I wanted to help the US win the race I might:
Invest in on-shoring the means of production for the AI vertical (in progress)
Invest in expanding supporting infrastructure (in progress)
Place plausibly state-disconnected but trusted people in positions of power, like board seats (some done, some in progress).
Award lucrative military contracts for not-explicitly-offensive-purposes. (Some done, probably more in progress).
Bring heads of the major labs to the head of government for secret meetings, and establish close working relationships (done, and on going).
Place secret operatives and surveillance tech within the key companies (unobservable unless caught).
Place restrictions on export of key materials and technological information (done and on going).
Create a national government org explicitly to monitor progress in AI (done).
Purchase large amounts of computer equipment under false pretenses, hide it in secret facilities, and refuse to discuss the location or purpose of confronted. (Done) https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/grvJay8Cv3TBhXz3a/secret-us-natsec-project-with-intel-revealed
Seems like a lot of evidence in favor of a plausibly deniable soft-nationalization race. Can you present any counter-evidence?