The conventional wisdom is well-established: the race between the United States and China to build powerful artificial intelligence is most akin to the arms race of the atomic age. Sam Altman of OpenAI famously compared his company’s efforts to The Manhattan Project. Anthropic’s Dario Amodei compared selling advanced chips to China as akin to selling nuclear weapons to North Korea.” Elon Musk went further, saying “…the danger of AI is much greater than the danger of nuclear warheads, by a lot…”
But the nuclear analogy is a limited shorthand reference; it quickly and intuitively situates the gravity of the risk from powerful AI in a framework that people readily grasp. But there is a foundational discrepancy in comparing AI to nuclear weapons; and as the debate over “pacing the frontier” gains traction, the geopolitical shortcomings of the nuclear analogy for AI begin to matter tremendously. Especially in the context of competition with China.
Employment of nuclear weapons are whole integers in strategic equations. Their operative function is discrete: they are either used or not used, crossing the kinetic threshold or not. The decision to employ nuclear weapons was made only twice in human history, in the span of days, bringing a dramatic and frightening conclusion to humanity’s largest war. No other conflict has been able to break the inherent logic of deterrence by mutual destruction, as possible gains from their use are rendered hopelessly pyrrhic in light of the counterstrike.
Employment of AI is fundamentally different; more like a float in strategic equations, existing on an approximation or continuum that makes exact representation limited. It can be used at a high level of totality, seeking a knockout punch. Or it can be used at a low level of severity, running small scale attacks near-continuously, below the escalation horizon.
The Cold War arms race settled into an ironically stable balance of terror because the employment of humanity’s most powerful weapon was threatened but not enacted. In today’s race for powerful AI, it is far more likely to be a vortex of incessant probing, spying, hacking, defending, undermining, stabilizing, calculating, counterbalancing, innovating and deterring. Not a standoff between loaded arsenals that are on alert yet never employed, but rather two colossal systems of systems of intelligence maintaining a million points of friction, operating below the threshold of kinetic destruction.
The speed of such friction is a cat and mouse game, replicated at unimaginable scale and running at a speed that sits an order of magnitude above any prior arms race. Moreover, the advent will not come cleanly, as one nation arrives at the capability before the other. And it is here where the nuclear analogy, serving as intellectual scaffold for its accompanying calls for a mutual slowdown of AI progress will falter. As of yet, there are no strategically compelling off-ramps that can guarantee national security in an arms race built upon infinite friction. The intelligence of powerful AI, being as floats rather than integers in the strategic equation, cannot be meaningfully “capped” in the style of SALT or “reduced” in the style of START. At least not in today’s technology; possibly not for the foreseeable future given the inducements of geopolitical contest.
Therefore, the burgeoning American movement to “pace the frontier” risks following the nuclear analogy to a dangerously misaligned conclusion. Rather than stabilizing discrete capabilities that will be held as a “safe lead” over China’s own efforts, it will kneecap policymaking decisions by tying fluid technological capabilities to brittle and clumsy impressions of Beijing’s own capabilities. For such an effort to be successful requires a degree of transparency and reliability that borders upon naivety.
In the age of powerful AI, a geopolitical plateau of strategic stability will not come in a static balance of power, negotiated in the manner of bygone nuclear doctrines. Stability will come only from the innovative and effective control of the continuum of escalation in powerful AI’s deployment, in both attack and defense, across strategic and tactical points of infinite friction. That effort may prove to be more costly, more difficult, and more unstable than the nuclear arms race ever was.
Garrison Moratto holds a Master of Science International Relations from Liberty University. He is the host of The New Diplomatist podcast and author of the Distant Shores Substack.
This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.
This sounds like someone opposed to the Land Rush of 1889. Meanwhile the “sooners” are already gone.
The friction between countries is mostly a manufactured / created environment. The majority is the result of the military / industrial sector. In the past 125 years, certain weapons manufacturers have developed ever increasing potency of killing people.
However they still lack the ability to sit down meaningfully and create calm.
Other countries resources are a primary target.
Here we go again, the same rhetoric about AI. The west (USA) must be better, bigger, faster and more powerful and dominant than China, the manufactured evil opposition.
If China is so bad, why does the USA import $330 billion worth of goods from China annually. The reason, because they are better at manufacturing and lower in cost.
I am yet to read an unbiased report on how AI will actually improve human life on earth, rather than benefit the military and the AI elite.
“China, the manufactured evil opposition”
It’s not manufactured. Read “The Hundred-Year Marathon” subtitled “China’s Secret Strategy to Replace America As the Global Superpower” by Michael Pillsbury. He discussed the book in a few YouTube videos too.
You could also read it as, restating their international connections that they had in the 1400’s. They were dominant well before the first white European foot was placed on what is now the USA. They did a wonderful job of mapping the world. Read the book 1421.
Thanks for the recommended reading.
Well worth a read is “confessions of an economic hitman” by John Perkins. His third edition covers China.
From google AI
Yes, during the early 1400s, China’s Ming dynasty was the leading global maritime power, possessing an extraordinarily sophisticated international seafaring trading and diplomatic network. [1]
Between 1405 and 1433, the Emperor Yongle sponsored seven monumental naval expeditions commanded by the legendary Admiral Zheng He. Rather than seeking to colonise new territories, this state-sponsored network was designed to project imperial power, collect tribute, and stimulate international trade. [1, 2, 3]
Key Features of China’s 15th-Century Maritime System
“They were dominant well before the first white European foot was placed on what is now the USA.”
Yes, sure, but what do we conclude? That we should just roll over and let China dominate the world because they once had substantial reach- until they turned inward? Japan did the same thing- they had guns centuries ago, then made them illegal and turned inward not allowing any Westerners in with a few rare exceptions. China certainly had no power over Europe so “dominant” is too strong a word. They’ve always thought of their civilization as “Middle Earth”.
According to Pillsbury, China wants real dominance this time. I suggest you read his book. 🙂
A footnote- turns out the day China became The Peoples Republic of China was the day I came into this reality- 10/1/1949.
Of course China is not a Republic any more than the DPRK and little Kimmi Jong. I am very wary of China…it appeared at one time that there might be a move towards freedom but Tienanmen Square Massacre settled that one.
“Tienanmen Square Massacre” is ‘settled history’ as much as “global boiling” is ‘settled science’:
“It is important here to stress the point that the conditions for the Tiananmen Square debacle which was in fact about economic and not “democracy” issues would not have been possible without the introduction of the dual-track price system.
…
The Chinese leadership had no choice but to halt the plans for price liberalization in the fall of 1988.
…
China’s painful escape from a big bang in 1988 is part of the larger background to the uprisings [in]… Tiananmen Square. English-language literature basically presents two interpretations for why radical price reform was attempted in 1988. …”
How China Escaped Shock Therapy: Zhao Ziyang’s Controlled Opposition, the CIA’s Operation Yellowbird, George Soros and Tiananmen Square
Also, you might like to read “On China” by Kissinger. I have read it.
Thanks
I nominate this comment for the all time WUWT top 10 dumbest comments ever.
Putin invaded Ukraine because his military industrial complex made him? Gaza invaded Israel because their military industrial complex made them? Seriously?
As for China, apparently you haven’t noticed the major efforts by the US to reduce dependency on China? During peace there will always be trade. During war there is none. If you haven’t noticed, China and the US are not currently at war.
Your statements above are your words, not mine.
Thanks for the nomination, when is the awards ceremony being held, we can meet and have a good laugh.
You said:
The friction between countries is mostly a manufactured / created environment. The majority is the result of the military / industrial sector.
I gave you two examples that disprove this assertion. I can give you more. Many many more. You cannot provide one that supports it.
If those two were comparable
no one in the USA would try to restrict AI inside the USA – especially not AI CEO’s and especially not with the UN at the center.
DARPA, Pentagon and CiA would have pushed for necessary restrictions at least a decade ago on a global scale.
It is one thing when a few whistleblowers pop up.
Anorher thing when too many of them suddenly appear(NSA 32K employees and it took decades to get 2(Binney,Snowden) to come forward) and on top
the, by now, traditional and inevitable legion of philanthropic billionaires
trying to save humanity with the digital Event 201 as they already did with climate and covid –
and now computers .
The CCCP rotection racket.
So humanitarian, so global, so UN.
And if , last and least, the eternal hope and ultimate gatekeeper of the left Bernie Sanders gets reactivated and
suddenly becomes so expert to intruduce a complex AI – Bill ,(analogue to AOC ‘s GND and Gores climate and documentary skills)
one wonders what the real purpose here is and when
the expected shock&awe AI cyberattack is going to happen(a wet market AI virus, and absolutely not human made)
You left out your usual anti-US rant. According to you, the US is the root of all evil.
Throughout history, almost every invention, discovery, innovation, or creation-
the Atom, Bicycles, Computers, Electricity, Flight, Nuclear power, Motorised transport, Organ transplants, Power looms, Railways, Satellites, Steam power, Telephone …
was the work of the devil & would change or destroy everything we hold dear; but we adapted as we will to AI (especially as it’s proved to be fast but not very intelligent).
I somewhat agree. And I really like AI- a lot. But I don’t agree about it not being very intelligent. I think it’s super intelligent. Trump now doesn’t call it AI, he calls it AS. (artificial super intelligence)
Like most things in the past, AI will be used for both good & evil, but those with the most money & power will control it.
[“Trump now doesn’t call it AI, he calls it AS“]
Trump wouldn’t recognise intelligence if it bit him on his ass; he’s just a narcissistic grifter who makes Nixon & Clinton look honest.
God help America !!
Clearly, you much prefer severely demented Joe Biden and his lunatic policies of open borders and Net Zero. And of course those with money and power control everything. Is that supposed to be an original idea? 🙂 So you think a man elected twice is a moron? He’s not a Harvard style intellectual. We all know that. Also nothing original from your tiny brain. If you think a man elected twice is a moron, that means you think the majority of Americans are morons. That doesn’t say much for your minimal intelligence. Clinton? You mean the blow job in the white house president? What’s that say about his intelligence? Did you vote for Harris? If so, you need psychiatric treatment real soon.
[“So you think a man elected twice is a moron?“]
Vladimir Putin has won five presidential elections in Russia, specifically in the years 2000, 2004, 2012, 2018, and 2024.
I didn’t say Trump was a moron; I said he is “a narcissistic grifter“, sadly showing signs of severe derangement.
[” If you think a man elected twice is a moron, that means you think the majority of Americans are morons.“]
No;
Trump didn’t have a majority; only approximately 31.4% of all eligible US voters voted for Trump.
68.6% of all eligible US voters didn’t vote for Trump.
And a total of 89 million voter-eligible Americans didn’t use their vote.
If they don’t vote- they don’t count. Only a loser would count them. 🙂
So, you’re comparing elections in the Russian Empire with elections in the US?
Putin wins elections in a country where opposition leaders conveniently jump out of windows, acts which are conveniently ruled as suicides.
You left that part out.
1save,
You lack the intelligence needed to recognise the intelligence levels of others, plus the magnitude of their personal achievements. Kindly provide a few examples of your choice for people with more intelligence and achievement than President Trump.
And raise the intellectual level of your comments on WUWT. Geoff S
[“people with more intelligence and achievement than President Trump.“]
Here are just ten from the millions …
James Watt, Trivithick, Newton, Einstein, Dickins, Mari Curie, Alan Turing, Eunice Foote, Julius Edgar Lilienfeld, Christiaan Barnard.
Sorry, but I don’t know the names of any of the White House janitors.
What does any of that mean? What does the author actually want us to do?
The calls for “slowing down” AI are absurd.
I’m currently working on three AI problems, two of which involve a substantial payoff if I solve them, all of which require novel AI models I need to personally develop.
At what point do I decide I don’t want to be paid because my AI model is too powerful? My AI model will be as powerful as it needs to be to solve the problems.
The merchants of doom can go f*ck themselves. I want to pay my bills and put my kid through university.
This ^
Comparing nuclear weapons to AI isn’t a good fit. It is true both can be very dangerous but AI has the possibility of doing a lot of good. Nuclear weapons not so much except to stop bad guys from doing bad things. The goal should be to squeeze as much good out of AI while at the same time guarding against it being used for bad things.
A better comparison at this stage would be AI vs nuclear power. The potential for beneficial use of nuclear technology has certainly overcome the risk posed by nuclear weapons. AI offers the same potential for enormous benefits if the risks can be mitigated.
Sadly, we are feeling some consequences of the call “The government should do something about it” that has been popular since as long as I can remember.
Sadly, there is a social class of people all too willing to do that “something” by telling others what they can and cannot do. At my age of 85, a long time spent observing people as a hobby leads me to claim that the biggest social change that I have witnessed is the growth of those paid to tell others what they can and cannot do.
In reality, human progress has been remarkable, but it has come from those who invent or conceive of new ideas, concepts and goods. The contribution from those restricting others is most often negative, the lead in the saddle of those in the race to improve.
Advances are made by those who say “How can I get this new concept to work?”, not from those who say “We need to stop this new concept until we structure our control over it.”
At present, we have a green blob in society notable for saying NO when YES is the best response. They bleat “protection of the environment” to sucker in the masses but they seldom get more than about 10% of votes in political contests like elections. This mouse that roars with a tiny squeak.
This AI or SI or IS topic topic has attracted many flies around the honey pot.
Sadly, most of them know more about social engineering than intelligence. Do not listen to their negative, green ideas. Learn from history. Geoff S
[” Learn from history.“]
100%
Sadly, we rarely do.
Mr. Beel said that one billion people could be at risk by SI….Super Intelligence. I don’t regard Mr. Beel too highly so I have not read his viewpoint details. I only purchased Microsoft one time…..and I have never used Fakebook much because of Zuckster.
physical AI weaponry can design produce deploy & use nuclear (as well as bio- etc) weapons autonomously – perhaps not fully right now, but during the Cold War humans annihilation was feared, today … maybe not as much