The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) creates an "AI Futures Steering Committee" co-chaired by top defense officials. Its explicit purpose is to formulate policy for evaluating, adopting, and mitigating risks of AGI, and to forecast adversary AGI capabilities.
Related Insights
It's futile to debate *whether* transformative technologies like AI and robotics should be developed. If a technology offers a decisive advantage, it *will* be built, regardless of the risks. The only rational approach is to accept its inevitability and focus all energy on managing its implementation to stay ahead.
The US AI strategy is dominated by a race to build a foundational "god in a box" Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). In contrast, China's state-directed approach currently prioritizes practical, narrow AI applications in manufacturing, agriculture, and healthcare to drive immediate economic productivity.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has elevated biotech to a national security asset, alongside AI and quantum computing. This shift creates new funding opportunities through a dedicated Department of Defense (DOD) biotech office, distinct from traditional NIH grants.
The "Genesis Mission" aims to use national labs' data and supercomputers for AI-driven science. This initiative marks a potential strategic shift away from the prevailing tech belief that breakthroughs like AGI will emerge exclusively from private corporations, reasserting a key role for government-led R&D in fundamental innovation.
The same governments pushing AI competition for a strategic edge may be forced into cooperation. As AI democratizes access to catastrophic weapons (CBRN), the national security risk will become so great that even rival superpowers will have a mutual incentive to create verifiable safety treaties.
The development of AI won't stop because of game theory. For competing nations like the US and China, the risk of falling behind is greater than the collective risk of developing the technology. This dynamic makes the AI race an unstoppable force, mirroring the Cold War nuclear arms race and rendering calls for a pause futile.
The appointment of an AI czar follows a historical US pattern of creating such roles during crises like WWI or the oil crisis. It's a mechanism to bypass slow government bureaucracies for fast-moving industries, signaling that the government views AI with the same urgency as a national emergency requiring swift, coordinated action.
Instead of trying to legally define and ban 'superintelligence,' a more practical approach is to prohibit specific, catastrophic outcomes like overthrowing the government. This shifts the burden of proof to AI developers, forcing them to demonstrate their systems cannot cause these predefined harms, sidestepping definitional debates.
The National Security Commission on AI advocates that to win the AI arms race, the U.S. must replicate China's "civil-military fusion" model, which deeply integrates the private tech sector with the military. This strategy risks sacrificing American civil liberties and values under the justification of national security, essentially arguing we must become China to beat China.
The greatest risk to integrating AI in military systems isn't the technology itself, but the potential for one high-profile failure—a safety event or cyber breach—to trigger a massive regulatory overcorrection, pushing the entire field backward and ceding the advantage to adversaries.
