[bpodgursky]

The federal government believes that the US will be locked out of the future forever if we are not first, or at least at parity, on AI with adversaries. They believe it is not a normal technology, but a singularly important one which will define national capacity.

The federal government believes that if China achieves AI dominance and we are not competitive on either the industrial or cognitive stacks, the people and planet will be at the whim of China and will not do better anyway (and come on — look at how China's fishing fleets treat the parts of the world they have unrestricted access to).

You can disbelieve it, but that is a perfectly valid thesis.

[SiempreViernes]

I prefer to think that all compute Open AI has access too was actually given to Altman by Santa because he was once a good boy. "You can disbelieve it, but that is a perfectly valid thesis."

Do you see how putting "it's a perfectly valid thesis" at the end of any completely unsupported claim doesn't actually make it any more credible?

[bpodgursky]

Do you have a brain tumor or something? I genuinely don't understand what point you are trying to make.

[goatlover]

This is a narrative framing from the tech companies who started and continue the AI race. The current administration is following this framing because the tech billionaires helped them get elected, so they are getting their pay back. It's crony capitalism.

[bpodgursky]

I do not work at an AI company. If you gave me a magic button, I would press it to halt all frontier AI development globally.

But, I do not have that button, and I believe the thesis that for the US to thrive, or even survive, we have to win at AI. So, until we get a multinational pact to pause AI (which I would support), it needs to be all gas, all the time.

[SiempreViernes]

> So, until we get a multinational pact to pause AI (which I would support), it needs to be all gas, all the time.

In other words "If others give me exactly what I want, without me making any effort for it, I will stop doing this thing I regret having to do". Someone might object that it's possible, achievable, and useful to produce partial success on the road to a comprehensive solution. Still others think it's best to not have a ceasefire while you negotiate the peace.

[bpodgursky]

Do you think the US could have negotiated the New START treaty to get Russia to reduce their nuclear arms stockpile, if the US did not have parity in nukes?

Unilateral ceasefires while your opponents are at full throttle are the dumbest imaginable response.