a. We will get a Congress sensible, rational, collaborative, informed to this 10 years? No. not a chance. You would need the Congress that wrote the Clean Air Act, CAFE, FMVSS.
b. After a., you need enforcement. rules as we see today, formerly called laws, now merely suggestions, are a joke under Conservative and Republican Oligarch rule.
c. Change in AI, will happen as.fast as the authors fear or imagine. Because we no longer have a government that is fast enough to play catch.
Wow, this is a seriously detailed playbook for a new AI Tech Cold War. Pretty much everything imaginable is in here. Hopefully it gets read not just by the White House, but also by tech investors, academia, and anyone watching from the sidelines.
Since most of the lessons here are drawn from US-Soviet nuclear inspection mechanisms during the Cold War, the real question is: Has America actually woken up this time? What’s the 'Sputnik moment' in this new Cold War—as Niall Ferguson defines it—where AI replaces nuclear arms? Was it DeepSeek matching OpenAI at a fraction of the cost? Nah, doesn't look like it—after a brief wave of noise, everyone just moved on. Then China recently dropped Kimi K3, putting them right behind Anthropic, but again, nobody really panicked.
So is it fair to say the Sputnik moment for Cold War 2.0 hasn't actually happened yet? If so, that's a relief, and this paper is just great forward-thinking. But what if it's the opposite? What if waking up is the hard part? Or worse, what if there's a wake-up call, but no real capacity to execute a great plan? Isn't that the most dangerous scenario?
History offers great lessons, but what it can't teach—the new dynamics, how to build real consensus, and what is simply impossible to pull off today—might matter even more. With all due respect, if this paper came out between 1957 and 1969, it would be an operations manual. Reading it today, it feels more like science fiction. Anyway, I really enjoyed reading this long piece. Kudos to the authors for doing the serious thinking!
Impressive and detailed.
But.
a. We will get a Congress sensible, rational, collaborative, informed to this 10 years? No. not a chance. You would need the Congress that wrote the Clean Air Act, CAFE, FMVSS.
b. After a., you need enforcement. rules as we see today, formerly called laws, now merely suggestions, are a joke under Conservative and Republican Oligarch rule.
c. Change in AI, will happen as.fast as the authors fear or imagine. Because we no longer have a government that is fast enough to play catch.
Unfortunately.
No matter what rules are agreed or legislated, Sam “black swan” Altman will flout & subvert them.
The data center proposal was highly common sense and I appreciated reading about some of the legislation that is at least in the draft stage
Wow, this is a seriously detailed playbook for a new AI Tech Cold War. Pretty much everything imaginable is in here. Hopefully it gets read not just by the White House, but also by tech investors, academia, and anyone watching from the sidelines.
Since most of the lessons here are drawn from US-Soviet nuclear inspection mechanisms during the Cold War, the real question is: Has America actually woken up this time? What’s the 'Sputnik moment' in this new Cold War—as Niall Ferguson defines it—where AI replaces nuclear arms? Was it DeepSeek matching OpenAI at a fraction of the cost? Nah, doesn't look like it—after a brief wave of noise, everyone just moved on. Then China recently dropped Kimi K3, putting them right behind Anthropic, but again, nobody really panicked.
So is it fair to say the Sputnik moment for Cold War 2.0 hasn't actually happened yet? If so, that's a relief, and this paper is just great forward-thinking. But what if it's the opposite? What if waking up is the hard part? Or worse, what if there's a wake-up call, but no real capacity to execute a great plan? Isn't that the most dangerous scenario?
History offers great lessons, but what it can't teach—the new dynamics, how to build real consensus, and what is simply impossible to pull off today—might matter even more. With all due respect, if this paper came out between 1957 and 1969, it would be an operations manual. Reading it today, it feels more like science fiction. Anyway, I really enjoyed reading this long piece. Kudos to the authors for doing the serious thinking!
23 is my luck number as well!