Good article, but I would push back some on the idea that AI is a winner-take-all race between America and China.
That's not the case with technology in general. Ideas can spread across frontiers. You don't have to invent it in order to use it. The followers can be better off than the leader: they avoid the early mistakes and adopt mature technologies.
Military technologies are different, and presumably AI has military applications, although AI chatbots and military drones operating beyond line of sight are pretty different and may be a different space. But even military AI only seems like a winner-take-all race if one power gets ahead and then conquers the other by virtue of its its technologically enabled military superiority. Otherwise, there's time to catch up even if you "lose the race."
What exactly is the scenario where China "wins?" Do we keep using our American chatbots, but it's depressing to know that China's are better? Do we use Chinese chatbots, and get all the productivity gains, but must endure the shame of owing those gains to foreigners? Or does China charge us through the nose for their cutting-edge AI, or fill chatbot responses with Chinese propaganda? But then, wouldn't we just stop using them?
I'm all for adopting AI, but I'm not yet convinced that there's a meaningful "race" dynamic here. Or at least, it needs a lot more explanation to be credible, and whatever truth there is in it probably needs a better, more precise, less expansive description than "the AI race."
It's probably no accident that modern democracy emerged in the industrial era. It emerged and was sustained in a world of relative abundance.
That's because this world of growth meant that progress was positive sum. Compare this to the zero-sum agrarian world before it.
Democracy must also embrace AI because of the growth potential if offers. Without it, a falling energy return on investment, among other headwinds, risks a return to zero sum growth and the collapse of democracy itself.
"It’s not a substitute for the thymos — spiritual resolve — required for renewal."
If we (as a society) don't rediscover that resolve, AI won't help us one bit. If we do rediscover that resolve, nobody (with or without AI) will be able to stop us.
How do we improve the role of rational information in the function of civic society? It's not just about understanding and articulating the information needed, it is also about how government, especially at the municipal level, works. Regarding AI, it's interesting that Herb Simon, one of the leaders of 1st generation AI, started his career and developed many of his ideas on administrative behavior and decision making in the context of 'rational government' (https://x.com/i/grok/share/2344305aaa5346e6b31385a258a88a5c). I'd also highly recommend his autobiography 'Models of My Life' (https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262691857/models-of-my-life/). A real inspiration for me.
Good article, but I would push back some on the idea that AI is a winner-take-all race between America and China.
That's not the case with technology in general. Ideas can spread across frontiers. You don't have to invent it in order to use it. The followers can be better off than the leader: they avoid the early mistakes and adopt mature technologies.
Military technologies are different, and presumably AI has military applications, although AI chatbots and military drones operating beyond line of sight are pretty different and may be a different space. But even military AI only seems like a winner-take-all race if one power gets ahead and then conquers the other by virtue of its its technologically enabled military superiority. Otherwise, there's time to catch up even if you "lose the race."
What exactly is the scenario where China "wins?" Do we keep using our American chatbots, but it's depressing to know that China's are better? Do we use Chinese chatbots, and get all the productivity gains, but must endure the shame of owing those gains to foreigners? Or does China charge us through the nose for their cutting-edge AI, or fill chatbot responses with Chinese propaganda? But then, wouldn't we just stop using them?
I'm all for adopting AI, but I'm not yet convinced that there's a meaningful "race" dynamic here. Or at least, it needs a lot more explanation to be credible, and whatever truth there is in it probably needs a better, more precise, less expansive description than "the AI race."
Great piece here Jeff.
It's probably no accident that modern democracy emerged in the industrial era. It emerged and was sustained in a world of relative abundance.
That's because this world of growth meant that progress was positive sum. Compare this to the zero-sum agrarian world before it.
Democracy must also embrace AI because of the growth potential if offers. Without it, a falling energy return on investment, among other headwinds, risks a return to zero sum growth and the collapse of democracy itself.
"It’s not a substitute for the thymos — spiritual resolve — required for renewal."
If we (as a society) don't rediscover that resolve, AI won't help us one bit. If we do rediscover that resolve, nobody (with or without AI) will be able to stop us.
How do we improve the role of rational information in the function of civic society? It's not just about understanding and articulating the information needed, it is also about how government, especially at the municipal level, works. Regarding AI, it's interesting that Herb Simon, one of the leaders of 1st generation AI, started his career and developed many of his ideas on administrative behavior and decision making in the context of 'rational government' (https://x.com/i/grok/share/2344305aaa5346e6b31385a258a88a5c). I'd also highly recommend his autobiography 'Models of My Life' (https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262691857/models-of-my-life/). A real inspiration for me.
Realistic perspective appreciated and cautious optimism applied will preserve thymos.