Xi Jinping's plan to overtake America in AI
On May 21st J.D. Vance, America's vice-president, described the development of artificial intelligence as an 'arms race' with China. If America paused out of concerns over AI safety, he said, it might find itself 'enslaved to PRC-mediated AI'. The idea of a superpower showdown that will culminate in a moment of triumph or defeat circulates relentlessly in Washington and beyond. This month the bosses of OpenAI, AMD, CoreWeave and Microsoft lobbied for lighter regulation, casting AI as central to America's remaining the global hegemon. On May 15th president Donald Trump brokered an AI deal with the United Arab Emirates he said would ensure American 'dominance in AI'. America plans to spend over $1trn by 2030 on data centres for AI models.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
AP PHOTOS: South Korea votes for a new president
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Speaker Johnson defends Medicaid work requirements as 'commonsense'
The bill implements new requirements for able-bodied adults without children to show that they've worked, volunteered, or attended an educational program for at least 80 hours per month. Some researchers argue that millions of people eligible for Medicaid could lose coverage because they are unable to meet the bureaucratic requirements to prove they are disabled, working or going to school. Johnson defended the requirements in an interview with NBC News' "Meet the Press" on June 1, arguing that the bill would implement "common sense" requirements. "You're telling me that you're going to require the able-bodied, these young men, for example, to only work or volunteer in their community for 20 hours a week. And that's too cumbersome for them?" Johnson said "I'm not buying it. The American people are not buying it." He added that the requirements "should have been put in a long time ago." "The people who are complaining that these people are going to lose their coverage because they can't fulfill the paperwork, this is minor enforcement of this policy, and it follows common sense," he said. The bill will now be reviewed by the Senate, where it may undergo changes. Some Republican senators, like Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, have raised concerns about the depth of potential cuts to Medicaid. Democrats have argued that the legislation is cutting benefits for low-income Americans in order to deliver additional tax breaks to the wealthy. Johnson's comments come as some Republican lawmakers face pushback in their home states and districts over the proposed cuts. Rep. Mike Flood, R-Nebraska, Rep. Ashley Hinson, R-Iowa, and Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, faced angry crowds during town halls that raised concerns about the bill's impact on Medicaid. Republican lawmakers hope to pass the legislation by July 4, leaving them only four weeks to approve it in the Senate, reconcile changes between the House and Senate versions, approve it again in the House, and send it to the president's desk. However, the real deadline is the end of July. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has warned lawmakers that the U.S. will default on its debt in August if the debt ceiling is not raised. The bill also includes a $4 trillion increase in the debt ceiling.
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Keir Starmer's desperate Churchill act won't fool anyone
But the PM's proclaimed enemy isn't the Argentinian junta but a mighty Russian military machine which could wipe Britain off the face of the Earth in 10 minutes. The truth is the Russians are not our enemies; they after all lost 20 million people helping us to defeat Nazi Germany. They are in conflict with the Ukraine and with Nato over the treatment of the Russian areas of Ukraine and the fact that Nato has placed troops and missiles right up to the Russian border despite saying it wouldn't. The war in Ukraine could have been over two years ago at the talks in Istanbul. Craig Murray, our former ambassador who attended these talks, told me that a peace deal was blocked by the US and Britain. Now Keir Starmer has taken on his warlike role and is willing to spend money on warfare rather than welfare. I believe Scotland should be different and be a force for peace in the world rather than war, but for that we need our independence. Hugh Kerr (MEP 1994-99), Edinburgh. Don't fall for war hysteria Failing governments love war hysteria to distract the public from their incompetence. Arms companies love war hysteria since it is great for profits. The military establishment loves war hysteria since it strengthens their resource bargaining power. The rest of us should view war hysteria with both concern and scepticism. The proposal that the UK should proceed with a range of tactical nuclear weapons for which they would purchase American Lockheed 5-35A planes to deliver them should certainly be cause for concern. The theory is that the smaller tactical nuclear bombs are more "useable" and, therefore, a credible threat. This is an invitation to so many other states who have until now ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to decide that it would also be viable for them to go for small "useable" nuclear bombs. But so much in this Defence Review is also cause for scepticism. The current four nuclear-armed submarines at Faslane are in a serious substandard state and the Navy struggles to ensure that there is one constantly at sea. Their replacements are years overdue and hugely over-cost. By the time they are ready for service, it is questionable whether there will be a Trident missile system to lease from the US, certainly not for long since the US Navy is planning to have Trident 3 decommissioned in the next 20 years. So another huge amount of squandered money. Read more letters The other cause for scepticism is that the supposed "independent" British system is totally dependent on the US, which leases and services the missiles on the Clyde to the UK. Donald Trump could cancel that lease at any time. The proposal for the new tactical nuclear weapons again depends on the US for the delivery system. Who are the people who will lead us away from this constant war hysteria? Ironically George Robertson, who led the current review, did show some honesty in a radio interview in August 2022. He said that when he was Nato Secretary General they had developed quite a cooperative relationship with Vladimir Putin and had a Russia/Nato Council. But the US did not like this cooperation and stopped it. He also said it was a serious mistake for Nato to approve Nato membership in principle in 2008 for Ukraine and Georgia. We can't wind the clock back but we can as a first step change the tone of the rhetoric and work on a new vision. Isobel Lindsay, Biggar. Where is the anti-war left? Defence Secretary John Healey has announced that 'the UK would be ready for a fight' with hints that this is aimed at Russia, and that six new defence factories will be built in Britain. Funny, this was not in the Labour manifesto. Hitler and Napoleon were also ready for a fight with Russia and look at what happened to them. As both Russia and the UK have nuclear weapons it's odd that CND and similar groups are not protesting on the streets. What happened to the anti-war left? What happened to the anti-corporate left? Geoff Moore, Alness. We need to be pragmatic Peter Wright (Letters, May 31) makes some valid points in questioning the assignment of the Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa to the Arran route and whether that represents 'good business'. With regard to his defence of the cost overruns and delays in the building of the aircraft carriers and Type 26 frigates he also makes some valid points, although notably is seemingly less forthcoming with such arguments when commenting on the building of the ferries. Steph Johnson (Letters, May 31) on the other hand attempts to have it both ways by including even estimated peripheral costs in her ferries budget excess comparison with the building of the frigates but omitting costs such as the initial £127 million Type 26 design contract and other ongoing MoD costs. While no doubt arguments will persist over the building and assignment of these ships, I think we can all agree that governments around the world have poor track records when it comes to major procurement projects, especially when these encompass innovative designs, and regrettably neither the Scottish nor the UK Government is an exception in this regard. Where we will perhaps continue to disagree is on the commitment of hundreds of billions of pounds to British imperialist global posturing. In an independent Scotland no doubt the Scottish Government, whichever political party is effectively in power, will continue to make mistakes, but our naval spending will be much more in tune with our practical requirements and similar to that of our Scandinavian neighbours. A sensibly pragmatic approach to future defence spending, while still meeting common international obligations with our allies and within the United Nations, will release billions of pounds to invest in Scotland's infrastructure and public services to construct the genuinely democratic, prosperous and egalitarian country most people in Scotland desire for their children. Stan Grodynski, Longniddry. Fred Goodwin (Image: PA) Why must we pay RBS bill? It is surely wrong that we taxpayers have to accept £10 billion of loss on the sale of shares following the Government's rescue in 2008 of the bankrupt RBS (now NatWest) ("RBS owner Natwest returns to full private ownership after shares sell-off", The Herald, May 31). Why was our support not by a loan, refundable in full to the Treasury in stages as the bank returned to health, with interest at a fair historical rate? Does the present board not feel any moral obligation to pay the £10 billion incurred due to its culpable predecessor? This loss compounds at a far higher level the nonsense that the individuals concerned (some not even bankers in the true sense) were allowed to walk away with their previous bonuses intact, even though they were shown to have been paid from what transpired to be bogus 'profits'. Likewise, their pension 'entitlements' were considered sacrosanct (for example Fred Goodwin's £600,000 a year for life from age 50 which he reluctantly reduced under public pressure from £713,000) despite the fact that on other bankruptcies, unfunded defined-benefit pensions are taken over by the Government's Pension Protection Fund, whose compensation cap in 2008 for members of that age was £24,202 pa. The late Lord Myners, the City grandee Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling appointed to deal with RBS, could and should have demanded that Goodwin and the board accept that the most recent bonuses, at least those to the top brass, be repaid and that their pensions be capped at PPF limits – as a vital non-negotiable condition-precedent before any taxpayer bail-out could be considered, let alone granted. So whether or not they accepted it, either way such phone-number inflation-adjusted payments to the directors and senior staff would have been avoided, and a form of lawful 'justice' seen by the public to be done. But without that agreed condition, and with Fred Goodwin being just 50 in 2008 (among others much younger than normal retirement age) such largesse will have endured quite possibly for well over 40 years into the 2050s. And Fred 'the Shred' Goodwin had the nerve to call the Government's negotiations a 'drive-by shooting'! John Birkett, St Andrews.
