I also largely agree with this direction of thinking. As sensor networks, data retention, and inference and simulation capabilities improve, sustained secrecy and deception should become increasingly difficult (maybe impossible).
There will, of course, be a transition period in which significant information asymmetries remain. But over the longer term, I suspect even state actors will struggle to keep major secrets. It makes me think of Pentagon pizza theory, but generalized across a much broader and more reliable set of signals.
Outside of centralized control, I am not sure there are many effective countermeasures. Even under centralized control, it is unclear how stable or durable that control could be.
My guess is that the strategic contest will gradually shift from controlling information to controlling attention, which is what I argue here. I do not yet have much of a solution beyond the belief that we should start taking this transition more seriously and thinking about its implications now.
This post got me thinking, though greater intelligence does not necessarily entail greater morality, I wonder whether moral coherence may be required for continued, open-ended intellectual development. Significant moral incoherence might eventually force an intelligence to correct itself, suppress further reflection, stagnate, or ultimately collapse if it develops too many contradictions. If so, maybe this would act as a limit on the orthogonality thesis (i.e., intelligence and values may vary independently across bounded levels of capability, while some value systems remain incompatible with indefinite cognitive development). From that perspective, the goal may be to help the combined AI–humanity system avoid becoming trapped in these developmental dead ends by discovering more coherent moral models (i.e., ones capable of supporting continued intellectual growth).