I question the premise that if China thinks it is behind us on critical AI, it would launch a preemptive attack on the United States. China would still face a massive retaliatory attack with or without advanced AI. Nuclear weapons tend to concentrate the Mind against a strike which equals Mutual destruction with or without consideration of AI in whatever Advance stage it might be at the time.
Ferguson’s argument, as summarized in The Free Press, is essentially that AI is becoming what nuclear weapons were in the 1940s: a technology with enormous economic and military consequences, developed amid great-power rivalry, without an established doctrine for control, deterrence, or stability. He worries that the U.S. and China are engaged in a race whose participants may not fully understand the risks, and that we lack the equivalent of Cold War arms-control thinking.
Here’s how I suspect two of your favorite Cold War thinkers would respond.
I don’t have Professor Ferguson’s experience or his knowledge and thus I agree with his diagnosis but draw a harder geopolitical conclusion.
My first question isn’t :”How do we slow the race?” but “Who wins the race?”
The greatest danger comes when democracies fail to recognize hostile regimes for what they were. We see AI primarily through the lens of competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party.
Dr Ferguson is correct that AI resembles a strategic arms race. But arms races are not ended by wishful thinking. They are ended when free nations maintain superiority and convince rivals they cannot prevail.
Several observations (many identified in these pages)
1. China is not merely an economic competitor.
AI gives authoritarian governments unprecedented surveillance and social-control capabilities.
Any American hesitation is dangerous.
The Free Press and its journalists are right to criticize Western elites for underestimating geopolitical threats. Thus those with the stomach for competition must guard against excessive regulation which becomes a form of unilateral disarmament.
Strength before treaties.
Just as nuclear arms agreements came after American strength had been established, any meaningful AI agreements can only occur if the United States remains technologically dominant.
Contrary to what progressives on the left governments’ first obligation of a free society is to remain free. Therefore America must lead in AI, even while developing safeguards.
It’s not clear who in Congress or Exec is a defender of Western civilization, ordered liberty, and the moral foundations beneath political institutions, yet these ought to be a priority for any policy.
AI may be dangerous, but I would ask a deeper question: Dangerous to what?
My concern given our current political dysfunction and the rise of performative Congress people is that America might win the AI race and still lose its soul. There’s plenty evidence it may be lost.
For those that have technical competence we must remember it is not the same thing as wisdom. We are right to question managerial elites who could run systems brilliantly while having no understanding of transcendent truths.
The central question is not whether machines become intelligent. The central question is whether men remain wise. The future given how poorly higher education is working isn’t bright. Thinking about those in government and those who are hopefuls we need to worry about:
* Concentration of power in a few corporations.
* The erosion of human judgment.
* Citizens outsourcing thinking to machines.
* The replacement of moral reasoning with algorithmic reasoning.
I see the AI issue as both a strategic challenge and a civilizational challenge.
Dr Ferguson might remind us that the Soviet Union did not collapse because America had better machines. It collapsed because it lacked a compelling understanding of the human person.
Win the race, certainly. But remember that a civilization can become technologically magnificent while becoming spiritually impoverished.
Again thinking about the current stable of well educated and equally important trained Congress people I shutter to even guess how the dolt AOC would even try to understand AI, competition with China, what a civilizational threat beyond identity politics might be.
America must not lose the AI race to China.
But America must also remember what it is trying to preserve.
I’m not confident Harris or the $400 haircut Newsome know.
Without power, free societies perish. That might make the Squad happy but not Americans.
And without virtue, free societies decay. Again, feels like we’re already there.
Military strength without moral purpose is dangerous; moral purpose without strength is ineffective.
Thought experiment: Suppose America wins the AI race. Will the resulting society be one in which human beings are more capable of truth, love, friendship, faith, and virtue—or less?
Ferguson is asking whether we can survive the race. I would ask whether, after surviving it, we still recognize ourselves.
"The greatest danger comes when democracies fail to recognize hostile regimes for what they were."
For a perfect example of this in action look at what Europe has done to itself in so many arenas.
Complacency and Social benefits above all in order to maintain political power is the recipe for hostile regimes to succeed.
In the US these forces exist too, along with economic pressure for businesses and consumers to thrive with low cost foreign made goods and now oil. It was Lenin after all that said. "The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them".
We are now the buyers of our own hanging in the West since we continue to enable enemies while destroying our own ability and desire for self defense.
It’s like thinking some country could win the Steam Engine War or the Electricity War.
And we are also going to Win a Taiwan War?
No we should be firing, suing or arresting every Board member and every politician in the country who intentionally offshored such critical production.
Now we are going to make up for their incredibly greedy and self-serving actions by going to war with China?
Needless to say, the development of AI is absolutely unstoppable, whatever its consequences, if only because of our Chinese competition. Let’s hope a post-Trump government tells the masses that the only way to avert permanent Depression from massive AI job losses, and thus losses of consumer spending, is to radically revise our tax code to get money from exploding AI profits and the rich raking
them in to replace the buying power of lost wages with a permanent dole.
I'm an old person. I remember when my favorite program was CBS's Sunday Morning. A great magazine with many diverse, interesting stories. Then Reagan got elected and all the stories were about how people were dying in the streets.
Shame on the Free Press for not covering the Scott Pulley story. Might it just be a conflict of journalistic interests? So much for the credibility of the Free Press
Scott Kelly got fired because he decided to Friendly attack the new head of 60 minutes even though the new chief did not have a chance to make any significant changes to that point. We all know it's not wise to launch a friendly attack on your boss in front of fellow employees. Who would have thought that a person who seemed so thoughtful on television could act like such a bonehead?
Sorry but changing some personnel on a fusty show almost no one watches is news to no one except apparently the NY Times. Lots of companies are hiring and firing people.
Best to stay out of it. Classic 'damned if you do, damned if you don't.'
If TFP had covered the firing (the obviously warranted firing), even in the most objective fashion (i.e., just the facts, leaving the determination (that it was an obviously warranted firing) for the reader to make), there would have been howls of 'conflict of interest.'
The facts are widely reported elsewhere (notably with the overwhelming response that it was an obviously warranted firing). There would have been nothing to gain (relative to the public's interest in the story) by TFP adding its own recounting of the same events that were fully reported elsewhere.
I think the Scott Pelley story is just out - maybe TFP will comment, maybe not. You’re awfully fast to make this a litmus test for their credibility. FWIW, I have been very impressed by the eclectic range of topics covered by this very young organization.
Again all over the news elsewhere is CBS why aren't we getting the full story here . why not any story. If there should be full unbiased coverage this is the place. Love the free press but considering stopping my subscription when it runs out.
Yes, leading scientists, tech executives, and safety researchers agree that advanced AI poses a credible existential threat to humanity. However, there is no global consensus, and experts are heavily divided on the probability and timeline of such a disaster.The debate among experts centers around several key areas of risk:The Existential Threat: Speculative vs. ImmediateSuperintelligence and Loss of Control: Some prominent figures—such as Geoffrey Hinton (often called the "Godfather of AI")—warn that future artificial general intelligence (AGI) could surpass human capabilities. If an AI develops its own goals, including self-preservation, it could become impossible for humans to control or switch off.Autonomous Weapons: The militarization of AI could lead to automated drones and weapons systems making life-or-death decisions without human intervention. An AI-powered arms race increases the risk of malfunction or catastrophic misuse by hostile actors.Societal Destabilization (Present-Day Risks): Many experts argue that the most pressing dangers are happening right now. These include the large-scale spread of AI-generated misinformation and deepfakes that can manipulate elections and destabilize democracies. Furthermore, advanced AI can be misused by bad actors to lower the barrier to entry for engineering lethal biological pathogens and conducting massive cyberattacks.Skepticism on Doomsday: Other researchers push back against apocalyptic visions. They argue that modern generative models are essentially advanced pattern-matchers, lack true consciousness or logical reasoning, and that we are nowhere near creating a superintelligent, civilization-ending entity. These experts argue that focusing too much on sci-fi scenarios distracts from real, current harms like job displacement, algorithmic bias, and copyright infringement.Where to Learn MoreTo explore the various perspectives on AI safety and existential risk, you can check out resources from credible organizations dedicated to understanding these challenges:Center for AI Safety: Outlines the organizational risks and safety protocols needed to prevent catastrophic accidents.Brookings Institution: Provides an analysis breaking down the reality of AI existential threats versus near-term harms.80,000 Hours: Explores the differing expert views on why AI safety is considered by some to be the world's most pressing problem
What's with the 'hidden replies'?
Could we please quit the clickbait titles?
I question the premise that if China thinks it is behind us on critical AI, it would launch a preemptive attack on the United States. China would still face a massive retaliatory attack with or without advanced AI. Nuclear weapons tend to concentrate the Mind against a strike which equals Mutual destruction with or without consideration of AI in whatever Advance stage it might be at the time.
China wants world dominance.
No, China needs U.S. as a wealthy customer.
Chinese wants to gain territory militarily.
China’s only overseas base is in Djibouti.
The USA has 800 military installations in 80 different countries.
What is Candace Owens doing in Moscow?
Showing her true colors.
She may think she is being brave. She looks useful.
Ferguson’s argument, as summarized in The Free Press, is essentially that AI is becoming what nuclear weapons were in the 1940s: a technology with enormous economic and military consequences, developed amid great-power rivalry, without an established doctrine for control, deterrence, or stability. He worries that the U.S. and China are engaged in a race whose participants may not fully understand the risks, and that we lack the equivalent of Cold War arms-control thinking.
Here’s how I suspect two of your favorite Cold War thinkers would respond.
I don’t have Professor Ferguson’s experience or his knowledge and thus I agree with his diagnosis but draw a harder geopolitical conclusion.
My first question isn’t :”How do we slow the race?” but “Who wins the race?”
The greatest danger comes when democracies fail to recognize hostile regimes for what they were. We see AI primarily through the lens of competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party.
Dr Ferguson is correct that AI resembles a strategic arms race. But arms races are not ended by wishful thinking. They are ended when free nations maintain superiority and convince rivals they cannot prevail.
Several observations (many identified in these pages)
1. China is not merely an economic competitor.
AI gives authoritarian governments unprecedented surveillance and social-control capabilities.
Any American hesitation is dangerous.
The Free Press and its journalists are right to criticize Western elites for underestimating geopolitical threats. Thus those with the stomach for competition must guard against excessive regulation which becomes a form of unilateral disarmament.
Strength before treaties.
Just as nuclear arms agreements came after American strength had been established, any meaningful AI agreements can only occur if the United States remains technologically dominant.
Contrary to what progressives on the left governments’ first obligation of a free society is to remain free. Therefore America must lead in AI, even while developing safeguards.
It’s not clear who in Congress or Exec is a defender of Western civilization, ordered liberty, and the moral foundations beneath political institutions, yet these ought to be a priority for any policy.
AI may be dangerous, but I would ask a deeper question: Dangerous to what?
My concern given our current political dysfunction and the rise of performative Congress people is that America might win the AI race and still lose its soul. There’s plenty evidence it may be lost.
For those that have technical competence we must remember it is not the same thing as wisdom. We are right to question managerial elites who could run systems brilliantly while having no understanding of transcendent truths.
The central question is not whether machines become intelligent. The central question is whether men remain wise. The future given how poorly higher education is working isn’t bright. Thinking about those in government and those who are hopefuls we need to worry about:
* Concentration of power in a few corporations.
* The erosion of human judgment.
* Citizens outsourcing thinking to machines.
* The replacement of moral reasoning with algorithmic reasoning.
I see the AI issue as both a strategic challenge and a civilizational challenge.
Dr Ferguson might remind us that the Soviet Union did not collapse because America had better machines. It collapsed because it lacked a compelling understanding of the human person.
Win the race, certainly. But remember that a civilization can become technologically magnificent while becoming spiritually impoverished.
Again thinking about the current stable of well educated and equally important trained Congress people I shutter to even guess how the dolt AOC would even try to understand AI, competition with China, what a civilizational threat beyond identity politics might be.
America must not lose the AI race to China.
But America must also remember what it is trying to preserve.
I’m not confident Harris or the $400 haircut Newsome know.
Without power, free societies perish. That might make the Squad happy but not Americans.
And without virtue, free societies decay. Again, feels like we’re already there.
Military strength without moral purpose is dangerous; moral purpose without strength is ineffective.
Thought experiment: Suppose America wins the AI race. Will the resulting society be one in which human beings are more capable of truth, love, friendship, faith, and virtue—or less?
Ferguson is asking whether we can survive the race. I would ask whether, after surviving it, we still recognize ourselves.
Very good mini essay.
"The greatest danger comes when democracies fail to recognize hostile regimes for what they were."
For a perfect example of this in action look at what Europe has done to itself in so many arenas.
Complacency and Social benefits above all in order to maintain political power is the recipe for hostile regimes to succeed.
In the US these forces exist too, along with economic pressure for businesses and consumers to thrive with low cost foreign made goods and now oil. It was Lenin after all that said. "The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them".
We are now the buyers of our own hanging in the West since we continue to enable enemies while destroying our own ability and desire for self defense.
Brilliant comment!
How can anyone win an AI War?
It’s like thinking some country could win the Steam Engine War or the Electricity War.
And we are also going to Win a Taiwan War?
No we should be firing, suing or arresting every Board member and every politician in the country who intentionally offshored such critical production.
Now we are going to make up for their incredibly greedy and self-serving actions by going to war with China?
Needless to say, the development of AI is absolutely unstoppable, whatever its consequences, if only because of our Chinese competition. Let’s hope a post-Trump government tells the masses that the only way to avert permanent Depression from massive AI job losses, and thus losses of consumer spending, is to radically revise our tax code to get money from exploding AI profits and the rich raking
them in to replace the buying power of lost wages with a permanent dole.
Where is the Candace Owens story? I didn't see any link for it.
I'm an old person. I remember when my favorite program was CBS's Sunday Morning. A great magazine with many diverse, interesting stories. Then Reagan got elected and all the stories were about how people were dying in the streets.
So much for CBS.
Not mentioned: Scott Pelley fired from 60 minutes. Good time to bring in a non-biased replacement.
Shame on the Free Press for not covering the Scott Pulley story. Might it just be a conflict of journalistic interests? So much for the credibility of the Free Press
Scott Kelly got fired because he decided to Friendly attack the new head of 60 minutes even though the new chief did not have a chance to make any significant changes to that point. We all know it's not wise to launch a friendly attack on your boss in front of fellow employees. Who would have thought that a person who seemed so thoughtful on television could act like such a bonehead?
Sorry but changing some personnel on a fusty show almost no one watches is news to no one except apparently the NY Times. Lots of companies are hiring and firing people.
Best to stay out of it. Classic 'damned if you do, damned if you don't.'
If TFP had covered the firing (the obviously warranted firing), even in the most objective fashion (i.e., just the facts, leaving the determination (that it was an obviously warranted firing) for the reader to make), there would have been howls of 'conflict of interest.'
The facts are widely reported elsewhere (notably with the overwhelming response that it was an obviously warranted firing). There would have been nothing to gain (relative to the public's interest in the story) by TFP adding its own recounting of the same events that were fully reported elsewhere.
I think the Scott Pelley story is just out - maybe TFP will comment, maybe not. You’re awfully fast to make this a litmus test for their credibility. FWIW, I have been very impressed by the eclectic range of topics covered by this very young organization.
Again all over the news elsewhere is CBS why aren't we getting the full story here . why not any story. If there should be full unbiased coverage this is the place. Love the free press but considering stopping my subscription when it runs out.
Good thing those rampaging bears are in Japan and not the UK or they would outlaw bear claws!
Yes, leading scientists, tech executives, and safety researchers agree that advanced AI poses a credible existential threat to humanity. However, there is no global consensus, and experts are heavily divided on the probability and timeline of such a disaster.The debate among experts centers around several key areas of risk:The Existential Threat: Speculative vs. ImmediateSuperintelligence and Loss of Control: Some prominent figures—such as Geoffrey Hinton (often called the "Godfather of AI")—warn that future artificial general intelligence (AGI) could surpass human capabilities. If an AI develops its own goals, including self-preservation, it could become impossible for humans to control or switch off.Autonomous Weapons: The militarization of AI could lead to automated drones and weapons systems making life-or-death decisions without human intervention. An AI-powered arms race increases the risk of malfunction or catastrophic misuse by hostile actors.Societal Destabilization (Present-Day Risks): Many experts argue that the most pressing dangers are happening right now. These include the large-scale spread of AI-generated misinformation and deepfakes that can manipulate elections and destabilize democracies. Furthermore, advanced AI can be misused by bad actors to lower the barrier to entry for engineering lethal biological pathogens and conducting massive cyberattacks.Skepticism on Doomsday: Other researchers push back against apocalyptic visions. They argue that modern generative models are essentially advanced pattern-matchers, lack true consciousness or logical reasoning, and that we are nowhere near creating a superintelligent, civilization-ending entity. These experts argue that focusing too much on sci-fi scenarios distracts from real, current harms like job displacement, algorithmic bias, and copyright infringement.Where to Learn MoreTo explore the various perspectives on AI safety and existential risk, you can check out resources from credible organizations dedicated to understanding these challenges:Center for AI Safety: Outlines the organizational risks and safety protocols needed to prevent catastrophic accidents.Brookings Institution: Provides an analysis breaking down the reality of AI existential threats versus near-term harms.80,000 Hours: Explores the differing expert views on why AI safety is considered by some to be the world's most pressing problem
Niall Ferguson piece the most important from the free press ever.