I totally agree with your article. World order is currently re-shaping, and AI is of the foremost importance in the outcome. I would argue that a shift from the post WWII unipolar order to a tri-polar world order (U.S.A, China, Russia) will be the result.
Also, I also think that the Trump administration foreign policy is more than "zero-sum obsession". In my opinion, it's a new strategic response to the US recognizing that the Truman doctrine cannot be sustained anymore, that a Russia-China close relationship should not be allowed to grow further (hence, US new approach with Russia), that China is moving forward with their Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to leverage their international influence while being ahead in Critical Tech, that the Critical Minerals are crucial (therefore Ukraine, and Greenland), Energy is crucial (e.g. L.N.G. Alaska project) and are using tariffs as a compensation measure to improve trade balance given the cost of the US dollar status as the international reserve currency (which is a geopolitical tool more than anything). All of that, being careful of not triggering the nuclear response which would mean a mutual assured destruction (MAD).
Finally, my take is that the industrial nuclear power that arrives first to the Artificial General-Intelligence, will definitely rise as the new super-power because it could have the biggest army ever seen (as big as their industrial capacity allows), integrated by ai-led robots, no recruitment needed, reduced political cost of war, and an army that conventional human-soldier armies will not be able to match in terms of maneuvers and tactics.
Thanks for such a concise and insightful explainer of recent events, Nina. Coincidentally I rewatched Terminator 2: Judgement Day recently after first watching as a teenager - what a movie! I’d forgotten a key character and storyline which was prescient, Miles Dyson developing the original microprocessor that enabled the creation of Skynet. Seems we’re not too far off this terrifying imaginary future becoming reality…
We literally are living in the sci-fi future. A sentiment that was impressed even deeper in my mind when I was recently researching what kinds of autonomous weapons are now operational (or soon will be…)
Power for power in itself, and not as a means to grow in a human-values-based world, has an irrational component that helps identify it. It’s forcibly arbitrary, even cruel, with less powerful nations or individuals. It could end up in a neo-slavery approach to international relationships.
Inadvertently, could a lack of European leadership in these sectors also protect it from further conflicts? Admittedly, while the EU and NATO are mobilizing to strategize against Russia, without US support, the deterioration of the Russia-China relationship will likely affect Russia’s ability to wage traditional war against the continent (this in itself unlikely) and will surely obscure any prospects of an effective industrial AI military complex being created. Additionally, the EU’s plans for a by-for-European defense will likely take years to develop independently, unless outsourced (from the US). This puts Europe at a disadvantage, yes, but does it also keep it safe from the security dilemma? From propagating environmental degradation (which AI development requires)? Or even from making an unwise investment in a massively overhyped, misunderstood, and misused technology that may not yield the profits speculators claim?
“Situational Awareness” by Leopold Aschenbrenner predicted much of the geopolitical developments last year. The ai-2027.com website that just came out is a must-read. There is also a Dwarkesh Patel podcast: https://youtu.be/htOvH12T7mU?si=-Ywijvu8oZnhzw0M
Interesting. Also see my post Rebuilding American Industry: A Historical and Economic Analysis
Donald Trump's tariffs aim to rebalance global trade, protect American innovation, and address economic imbalances. This Substack article explores the historical context, economic implications, and future challenges of these tariffs. It highlights the need for a comprehensive approach combining technical security measures and economic strategies to navigate global trade dynamics effectively.
As the person who coined the term "hemispherical stacks" in 2017 to explain how computational technology is the new geopolitical form/content, I am sympathetic to the aspiration of your argument, but the simple and obvious fact remains: this tariff regime will massively retard investment in industrialization and kneecapping the R&D pipeline at universities will dilute technological prowess. No?
Quite. When I explain (some) of what I see as the rationale - and it is not all comprehensive - and I am not saying it will be effective or work. It’s more the point that orthodoxies are being upended, and Trump’s administration is ‘just doing things.’
Mainly, I am trying to elucidate why that might be (as seen through what I believe is the geopolitical flashpoint of this century). I think it’s more nuanced than ‘Trump dumb’.
But what you’re getting at - the efficacy or the result, that’s a whole other kettle - so many obvious pitfalls, and others that we can’t even foresee yet. And maybe some of it might even work? The complexity, because how many moving parts there are, how quickly it’s happening, and because we are at this inflection point viz technology is much more profound than I think any one person can grasp!
Your analysis for why we must develop our internal capacity and secure supply chains is sound, but the current administration’s approach to solving things appears clumsy and ignorant of the complex, systemic nature of the problem domain. To take but one example: it will take years to build the refining capacity we need for rare earth metals. So, yes! Let’s get started building that today. But in the mean time, disrupting the current systems of trade with tariffs (based crudely on the size of or trade deficit rather than some rational basis) will neither solve the problems we face in the short term, nor set us up for future success. Unless, that is, you subscribe to the accelerationist view that we must first blow up the existing systems so we can rebuild them. This is the view of many in Trumps circle, but there is little evidence for the ability of the party blowing things up to then control the rebuilding so as to favor themselves. That’s the dream but rarely if ever the reality.
100%. Understanding the shifting balance of power doesn’t mean the blunt force tool prescribed is to going to be effective. Take even export controls to China for instance, good case to be made that they are incubating Chinese innovation to the extent that the U.S. will Still rely on TSCM but China will not. That puts Taiwan in a whole new league of jeopardy. We definitely won’t see how this plays out for a long time - and we can’t even yet fathom all the ‘unknown unknowns.’
I totally agree with your article. World order is currently re-shaping, and AI is of the foremost importance in the outcome. I would argue that a shift from the post WWII unipolar order to a tri-polar world order (U.S.A, China, Russia) will be the result.
Also, I also think that the Trump administration foreign policy is more than "zero-sum obsession". In my opinion, it's a new strategic response to the US recognizing that the Truman doctrine cannot be sustained anymore, that a Russia-China close relationship should not be allowed to grow further (hence, US new approach with Russia), that China is moving forward with their Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to leverage their international influence while being ahead in Critical Tech, that the Critical Minerals are crucial (therefore Ukraine, and Greenland), Energy is crucial (e.g. L.N.G. Alaska project) and are using tariffs as a compensation measure to improve trade balance given the cost of the US dollar status as the international reserve currency (which is a geopolitical tool more than anything). All of that, being careful of not triggering the nuclear response which would mean a mutual assured destruction (MAD).
Finally, my take is that the industrial nuclear power that arrives first to the Artificial General-Intelligence, will definitely rise as the new super-power because it could have the biggest army ever seen (as big as their industrial capacity allows), integrated by ai-led robots, no recruitment needed, reduced political cost of war, and an army that conventional human-soldier armies will not be able to match in terms of maneuvers and tactics.
Thanks for such a concise and insightful explainer of recent events, Nina. Coincidentally I rewatched Terminator 2: Judgement Day recently after first watching as a teenager - what a movie! I’d forgotten a key character and storyline which was prescient, Miles Dyson developing the original microprocessor that enabled the creation of Skynet. Seems we’re not too far off this terrifying imaginary future becoming reality…
We literally are living in the sci-fi future. A sentiment that was impressed even deeper in my mind when I was recently researching what kinds of autonomous weapons are now operational (or soon will be…)
*buries head under pillow*
Power for power in itself, and not as a means to grow in a human-values-based world, has an irrational component that helps identify it. It’s forcibly arbitrary, even cruel, with less powerful nations or individuals. It could end up in a neo-slavery approach to international relationships.
Power is Power. That's exactly we see on the world stage now. I'm not saying it makes the world a safer or better place. But it's a hard truth.
Inadvertently, could a lack of European leadership in these sectors also protect it from further conflicts? Admittedly, while the EU and NATO are mobilizing to strategize against Russia, without US support, the deterioration of the Russia-China relationship will likely affect Russia’s ability to wage traditional war against the continent (this in itself unlikely) and will surely obscure any prospects of an effective industrial AI military complex being created. Additionally, the EU’s plans for a by-for-European defense will likely take years to develop independently, unless outsourced (from the US). This puts Europe at a disadvantage, yes, but does it also keep it safe from the security dilemma? From propagating environmental degradation (which AI development requires)? Or even from making an unwise investment in a massively overhyped, misunderstood, and misused technology that may not yield the profits speculators claim?
I'll publish an in-depth piece shorty looking at AI/War and where Europe sits on this nexus. I address these questions in depth, stay tuned!
Absolutelly spot on!
“Situational Awareness” by Leopold Aschenbrenner predicted much of the geopolitical developments last year. The ai-2027.com website that just came out is a must-read. There is also a Dwarkesh Patel podcast: https://youtu.be/htOvH12T7mU?si=-Ywijvu8oZnhzw0M
Interesting. Also see my post Rebuilding American Industry: A Historical and Economic Analysis
Donald Trump's tariffs aim to rebalance global trade, protect American innovation, and address economic imbalances. This Substack article explores the historical context, economic implications, and future challenges of these tariffs. It highlights the need for a comprehensive approach combining technical security measures and economic strategies to navigate global trade dynamics effectively.
Read the full analysis here: https://open.substack.com/pub/cashflowcollective/p/rebuilding-american-industry-a-historical?r=4yoyh3&utm_medium=ios
As the person who coined the term "hemispherical stacks" in 2017 to explain how computational technology is the new geopolitical form/content, I am sympathetic to the aspiration of your argument, but the simple and obvious fact remains: this tariff regime will massively retard investment in industrialization and kneecapping the R&D pipeline at universities will dilute technological prowess. No?
Quite. When I explain (some) of what I see as the rationale - and it is not all comprehensive - and I am not saying it will be effective or work. It’s more the point that orthodoxies are being upended, and Trump’s administration is ‘just doing things.’
Mainly, I am trying to elucidate why that might be (as seen through what I believe is the geopolitical flashpoint of this century). I think it’s more nuanced than ‘Trump dumb’.
But what you’re getting at - the efficacy or the result, that’s a whole other kettle - so many obvious pitfalls, and others that we can’t even foresee yet. And maybe some of it might even work? The complexity, because how many moving parts there are, how quickly it’s happening, and because we are at this inflection point viz technology is much more profound than I think any one person can grasp!
Interested to hear your perspective?
Your analysis for why we must develop our internal capacity and secure supply chains is sound, but the current administration’s approach to solving things appears clumsy and ignorant of the complex, systemic nature of the problem domain. To take but one example: it will take years to build the refining capacity we need for rare earth metals. So, yes! Let’s get started building that today. But in the mean time, disrupting the current systems of trade with tariffs (based crudely on the size of or trade deficit rather than some rational basis) will neither solve the problems we face in the short term, nor set us up for future success. Unless, that is, you subscribe to the accelerationist view that we must first blow up the existing systems so we can rebuild them. This is the view of many in Trumps circle, but there is little evidence for the ability of the party blowing things up to then control the rebuilding so as to favor themselves. That’s the dream but rarely if ever the reality.
100%. Understanding the shifting balance of power doesn’t mean the blunt force tool prescribed is to going to be effective. Take even export controls to China for instance, good case to be made that they are incubating Chinese innovation to the extent that the U.S. will Still rely on TSCM but China will not. That puts Taiwan in a whole new league of jeopardy. We definitely won’t see how this plays out for a long time - and we can’t even yet fathom all the ‘unknown unknowns.’