Unlike nuclear energy or the space race where government was the primary funder, AI development is almost exclusively led by the private sector. This creates a novel challenge for national security agencies trying to adopt and integrate the technology.

The belief that AI development is unstoppable ignores history. Global treaties successfully limited nuclear proliferation, phased out ozone-depleting CFCs, and banned blinding lasers. These precedents prove that coordinated international action can steer powerful technologies away from the worst outcomes.

The common analogy between regulating AI and nuclear weapons is flawed. Nuclear development requires physically trackable, interceptable materials and facilities like enrichment plants. In contrast, AI models are software and weights, which are diffuse and far more difficult to monitor and control, presenting a fundamentally different and harder regulatory challenge.

Ben Horowitz revealed that Biden administration officials defended the idea of regulating AI—which he framed as "regulating math"—by citing the precedent of classifying nuclear physics in the 1940s. This suggests a governmental willingness to treat core algorithms as controlled, classifiable technology, potentially stifling open innovation.

The core conflict is not a simple contract dispute, but a fundamental question of governance. Should unelected tech executives set moral boundaries on military technology, or should democratically elected leaders have full control over its lawful use? This highlights the challenge of integrating powerful, privately-developed AI into state functions.

Drawing from the nuclear energy insurance model, the private market cannot effectively insure against massive AI tail risks. A better model involves the government capping liability (e.g., above $15B), creating a backstop that allows a private insurance market to flourish and provide crucial governance for more common risks.

An FDA-style regulatory model would force AI companies to make a quantitative safety case for their models before deployment. This shifts the burden of proof from regulators to creators, creating powerful financial incentives for labs to invest heavily in safety research, much like pharmaceutical companies invest in clinical trials.

The history of nuclear power, where regulation transformed an exponential growth curve into a flat S-curve, serves as a powerful warning for AI. This suggests that AI's biggest long-term hurdle may not be technical limits but regulatory intervention that stifles its potential for a "fast takeoff," effectively regulating it out of rapid adoption.

International AI treaties are feasible. Just as nuclear arms control monitors uranium and plutonium, AI governance can monitor the choke point for advanced AI: high-end compute chips from companies like NVIDIA. Tracking the global distribution of these chips could verify compliance with development limits.