For a blueprint on AI governance, look to Cold War-era geopolitics, not just tech history. The 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty, which established cooperation between the US and Soviet Union, shows that global compromise on new frontiers is possible even amidst intense rivalry. It provides a model for political, not just technical, solutions.
Related Insights
The dynamic between tech and government is not a simple decline but a cycle of alignment (post-WWII), hostility (2000s-2010s), and a recent return to collaboration. This "back to the future" trend is driven by geopolitical needs and cultural shifts, suggesting the current alignment is a return to a historical norm.
China's promotion of open-weight models is a strategic maneuver to exert global influence. By controlling the underlying models that answer questions about history, borders, and values, a nation can shape global narratives and project soft power, much like Hollywood did for the U.S.
Wikipedia was initially dismissed by academia as unreliable. Over 15 years, its decentralized, community-driven model built immense trust, making it a universally accepted source of truth. This journey from skepticism to indispensability may serve as a blueprint for how society ultimately embraces and integrates artificial intelligence.
The most profound innovations in history, like vaccines, PCs, and air travel, distributed value broadly to society rather than being captured by a few corporations. AI could follow this pattern, benefiting the public more than a handful of tech giants, especially with geopolitical pressures forcing commoditization.
Dr. Li rejects both utopian and purely fatalistic views of AI. Instead, she frames it as a humanist technology—a double-edged sword whose impact is entirely determined by human choices and responsibility. This perspective moves the conversation from technological determinism to one of societal agency and stewardship.
The political battle over AI is not a standard partisan fight. Factions within both Democratic and Republican parties are forming around pro-regulation, pro-acceleration, and job-protection stances, creating complex, cross-aisle coalitions and conflicts.
The economic and societal impact of AI is forcing politicians across the aisle to collaborate. From co-sponsoring legislation on AI-driven job loss to debating state vs. federal regulation, AI is creating common ground for lawmakers who would otherwise rarely work together.
An advanced AI will likely be sentient. Therefore, it may be easier to align it to a general principle of caring for all sentient life—a group to which it belongs—rather than the narrower, more alien concept of caring only for humanity. This leverages a potential for emergent, self-inclusive empathy.
Treating AI alignment as a one-time problem to be solved is a fundamental error. True alignment, like in human relationships, is a dynamic, ongoing process of learning and renegotiation. The goal isn't to reach a fixed state but to build systems capable of participating in this continuous process of re-knitting the social fabric.
Attempting to hoard technology like a state secret is counterproductive for the US. The nation's true competitive advantage has always been its open society, which enables broad participation and bottom-up innovation. Competing effectively, especially in AI, means leaning into this openness, not trying to emulate closed, top-down systems.