Robert Wright argues the most immediate existential danger isn't a superintelligent AI takeover, but the geopolitical competition. A breakneck race for AI supremacy could provoke one nation to launch a preemptive war to prevent the other from achieving a perceived decisive advantage.

Unlike nuclear weapons, superintelligence is an adversary, not a controllable tool. The nation that "wins" the race will immediately lose control to its creation, ensuring its own destruction. Game theory suggests the only stable outcome is cooperation to prevent its creation, as defection guarantees self-destruction for the defector.

The justification for accelerating AI development to beat China is logically flawed. It assumes the victor wields a controllable tool. In reality, both nations are racing to build the same uncontrollable AI, making the race itself, not the competitor, the primary existential threat.

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 argument that the US must race China to AGI is flawed. If one country is close to an AGI that could neutralize the other's nuclear arsenal, it creates a powerful incentive for the losing side to launch a preemptive nuclear strike. This makes a mutual moratorium on superintelligence the more rational geopolitical strategy.

Unlike nuclear weapons, which don't create better versions of themselves, AI systems can improve their own capabilities. This creates a recursive loop where the first entity to achieve a breakthrough gains a runaway intelligence advantage, dominating all rivals technologically and militarily.

The strategy of racing to AGI to gain a lead and manage the transition safely contains a fatal flaw. As one superpower approaches the threshold, it creates a powerful incentive for rivals to launch a preemptive strike (e.g., bombing data centers) to prevent the other from achieving irreversible military hegemony.

The immense strategic advantage offered by AI ensures its development will continue, regardless of safety concerns from insiders. Much like the Manhattan Project, which proceeded despite catastrophic risk, the logic of "if we don't, China will" makes unilateral cessation of research impossible for any major power.

Nations face a game theory problem with AI. Slowing down for safety might cede an insurmountable advantage to competitors like China. This creates a high-stakes scenario where everyone pushes development to the absolute edge, hoping not to be the one who goes too far.