Erica D. Lonergan and Benjamin Jensen
Conventional wisdom holds that an AI arms race will define the twenty-first century and could be decided as early as 2030. The second Trump administration’s National Security Strategy proclaims that AI “will decide the future of military power,” echoing Russian President Vladimir Putin’s warning in 2017 that whoever leads in AI “will become the ruler of the world.” But what if the defining technology of the twenty-first century actually rewards the most nineteenth-century of strategies: a cocktail of strategic parsimony and geopolitical fatigue, served neat and called “restraint”?
The AI arms race is well covered, but it is still unclear what it means for American grand strategy. Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. grand strategy has largely oscillated between variants of liberal internationalism and efforts to ensure that the United States remains the world’s dominant military, economic, and political actor. The new race concerns which groups—not restricted to states—can best mobilize and deploy the resources required to build AI infrastructure and foundation models. It also concerns who defines a new set of
No comments:
Post a Comment