To Win Or Not To Win The AI Race. The Question To End All Questions
When President Donald Trump announced Winning the AI Race: America's AI Action Plan yesterday, he said something we should all remember:
'America is the country that started the AI race. And as president of the United States, I'm here today to declare that America is going to win it.'
These are important words to remember because it may be the last time, Trump and his Big Tech partners in Silicon Valley acknowledge that AI wasn't always a question of winning or losing a race.
To Win Or Not To Win Is Not The Only Question
Once AI was a philosophical question – one that religious and spiritual thinkers from ancient cultures asked to better understand the laws of nature.
Later it became a scientific question – one that English mathematicians and computer scientitsts asked to transcend the laws of nature.
And lately, it has become everyone's question – one that ethicists, policy makers, journalists, educators, you, and I ask to protect the nature in and around us that AI threatens to replace.
But – Trump claims – AI is no longer a question. It's a race. A race started by America that America is going to win.
Why? Because, as Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, puts it, 'winning the AI race is non-negotiable.' And once something is non-negotiable, all questions about it ends.
So what are the questions America's AI Action Plan is designed to end?
And why is it important that we keep asking them?
The AI Race Ends Questions About Regulations
The plan identifies over 90 Federal policy actions across three pillars – Accelerating Innovation, Building American AI Infrastructure, and Leading in International Diplomacy and Security.
One key policy is enabling innovation and adoption by 'removing onerous Federal regulations that hinder AI development and deployment, and seek private sector input on rules to remove.'
In yesterday's summit Trump commented on this initiative, saying the AI industry is 'a beautiful baby that's born.'
'We have to grow that baby and let that baby thrive. We can't stop it. We can't stop it with politics, we can't stop it with foolish rules,' Trump said.
Talking about AI development as something that cannot be stopped is one thing. Comparing the tech industry with a baby whose growth and well-being we are responsible for is another. And maybe that's where our questions should start: Where our understanding of nature meets our understanding of technology.
Is it the same to be 'born to think' and to be 'built to think'? Do babies and AI technologies follow the same laws of nature? Do they have the same constraints? And can the questions asked by philosophers, religious thinkers, and scientists in the past guide us in navigating the need for restrictions and regulations in the future?
At the AI Action Plan summit, President Trump said the tech industry is 'a beautiful baby" that we ... More have to grow and let thrive. (Photo by Joe Mahoney)
The AI Race Ends Questions About Existential Risks
According to the White House's website, 'winning the AI race will usher in a new golden age of human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security for the American people.' But it doesn't say what this golden age of human flourishing should look like. In fact, the Trump administration's understanding of AI seems to built on the idea that technology can and should be neutral.
No human ideas and ideals. Just pure innovation. Or, as it says in the plan's 'upholding free speech in frontier models' section:
Federal procurement guidelines must be updated to 'ensure that the government only contracts with frontier language model developers who ensure that their systems are objective and free from top-down idealogical bias.'
But this idea that technology can and should be neutral can and should be questioned. For decades the developers of first the internet and then social media have promised us free speech and systems that are objective and free from top-down idealogical bias. And for decades, we have seen an increase in mental health problems caused by misinformation and polarization.
So, maybe that's the questions we must ask: How does it impact humans to think and talk about technology as something that doesn't impact humans? Is it possible to
let the tech industry grow and thrive and at the same time take responsibility for human growth and well-being? Or will a country that prioritizes to be front runners in building technological systems eventually lose sight of what it takes to build human systems, e.g. in terms of education, health, and ultimately democracy?
The AI Race Ends Questions About Global Collaboration
'Whether we like it or not, we're suddenly engaged in a fast-paced competition to build and define this groundbreaking technology that will determine so much about the future of civilization itself,' Trump said at the AI Action Plan event.
To prepare for this future, the government will partner with US tech companies to make 'full stack AI export packages' — AI models, hardware and software — available to American ally countries. As reported by CNN, this partnership aims at making US technology the global standard, something Silicon Valley leaders have called for to ensure the United States remains an AI leader.
But if AI really is this 'groundbreaking technology that will determine so much about the future of civilization itself', other countries are not looking to the US for a 'full stack AI export package'. And they are certainly not looking to Silicon Valley for global leadership and standards. Dealing with a groundbreaking technology that will determine the future of civilization itself calls for everyone to work together. And that calls for all of us to ask:
Should staying ahead of China be the top priority for the American administration right now? Or does AI call for an intergovernmental organization like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that promotes the safe, secure and peaceful use of nuclear technology? Established in 1957, IAEA was not influenced by Big Tech. The Agency's genesis was President Eisenhower's 'Atoms for Peace' address to the General Assembly of the United Nations on 8 December 1953.
Is that what the world needs from the president of the United States? Not a declaration that America is going to win a race it started itself. And not a full stack AI export package. But an 'AI for Peace' address that crystallizes the hope that the groundbreaking development of AI 'may lead to the unifying of the entire divided world' (Eisenhower's words about the splitting of the atom)?
To win or not to win the AI race is not the only question. There are many questions and none of them should be answered by one president of one country. Least of all in a plan designed to be non-negotiable.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Seth Meyers Roasted Karoline Leavitt In A Comedy Bit About What Trump Shockingly Called His "Past" Supporters
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt left Seth Meyers baffled during a spoof press briefing on NBC's Late Night Tuesday. In the latest installment of the recurring comedy segment — which uses clever editing to insert Meyers into mock exchanges with Leavitt ― the host asked her to respond to President Donald Trump calling his supporters 'weaklings' for demanding the release of the Epstein files. Related: 'That claim is just simply untrue,' Leavitt replied. 'What? He posted it on social media last week,' Meyers shot back. Related: What followed was a looping exchange of contradictions, with Leavitt denying Trump ever made the comment while also acknowledging he had. Related: The back-and-forth ended with Meyers exasperatedly saying, 'Oh, my God! Why are you like this?!?' Leavitt's final response? 'There really isn't a good explanation for that.' Related: Watch here: This article originally appeared on HuffPost. Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Also in In the News:
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
5 things in markets that will make you do a double-take
Well, it is mid-summer, and the markets — and the business world — just get weirder and weirder. Rather than connect five points directly to one theme this week, we are going to take a look at five news items that have recently made me do a double-take, and have reminded me that there is never a dull moment in business and in investing. Yes, the business world remains — always — surprising and unique. Trump's Powell obsession U.S. President Donald Trump wants to fire Federal Reserve chief Jerome Powell. He seems obsessed with it, and it has gotten to the point of school-yard name calling bullying. But my question is: Why? Trump of course wants lower interest rates. Investors, home buyers and consumers like low rates, and lower rates will also substantially help the U.S. budget by lowering its massive interest rate charges. But let's take a look at Powell's record: He managed to successfully slay the inflation dragon of 2022; he steered the U.S. economy through the COVID pandemic and essentially by doing so saved the world; unemployment is low and stock markets are near record highs. What's not to like? Trump needs to understand that simply lowering the Fed rate does not always work, anyway. The market is smarter than that. Market interest rates can still rise even if Fed overnight rates fall. Before making any Fed personnel moves to enhance his own agenda, Trump might want to look at the economic record of Turkey, which pursued a lower interest rate policy before it was ready. (Hint: It's not good.) Sarepta Therapeutics Inc. It's been a long time since we have seen a blow-up fist fight between a company and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). But Sarepta came close. The company is developing drugs and therapies for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, a horrible disease affecting mostly boys. Elevidys, its gene therapy treatment, showed promise in treating the disease. But then three patients died taking the drug and the FDA asked the company to stop shipments. On July 18, the FDA met with the company and the company essentially said, 'Nah, we are not going to do that.' Eventually the company relented and voluntarily stopped shipments. This week, it was allowed to resume shipments after patient advocacy groups lobbied for the drug's return. How has all this worked out for Sarepta? Shares are down about 87 per cent this year. Palantir Technologies Inc. Palantir has been one of the best-performing large-cap stocks this year, up more than 100 per cent. Market capitalization is now about US$370 billion. Its focus on artificial intelligence and data analytics has been in the sweet spot of this year's tech rally, and the company has reported solid growth in revenue and earnings. That being said, every single analyst report on the company discusses its extreme valuation. It is certainly notable: The stock trades at 267 times earnings and at nearly 100 times forward sales. Some analysts view it as the most expensive stock ever. Of course it was expensive at the start of the year too, before its big move. So, considering this, we looked at the short interest of the company. Right now, it is 2.5 per cent. So while it may be very expensive, the short sellers are not really committing capital to this call by shorting it. As a comparison, Manulife Financial Corp., the conservative and stable insurance company, has a higher short interest, at 2.8 per cent. And, by the way, its price-earnings ratio is only 11 times earnings. Maybe all the short sellers in Palantir have given up. They have certainly lost money so far. But the situation is a good example of how some companies can stay expensive for a long time. Or, sometimes they are expensive for a reason. What year is it again? Despite lots of worries in the world investors seem to have lots of confidence. Yes, meme stocks are back again, like they were in 2021. Companies such as QuantumScape Corp., GoPro Inc. and Kohls Corp. have seen their stock prices soar as retail traders and Reddit chat boards hype up their prospects. Being on the right side of this trade can be very profitable but investors are not exactly buying 'quality' here. Meme stock traders are buying with the expectation, simply put, that someone is going to pay more. We heard a new phrase this week regarding the phenomenon: One noted analyst called it a 'flight to crap.' Meme stocks are causing some excitement during the slow summer months, but, like prior instances, we doubt it is going to end well for traders. If it sounds too good to be true, it could yield trouble We have been watching with interest this year's obsession with very-high-yield exchange-traded funds (ETFs). There are products out there, such as YieldMax MSTR Option Income Strategy ETF (symbol MSTY), that have an indicated yield of — wait for it — 72.91 per cent. This ETF uses a synthetic option strategy on a single stock, MicroStrategy Inc. to enhance yield, which is paid out to unitholders. MicroStrategy is among the largest corporate holders of bitcoin right now, and with bitcoin's rally, the stock has done very well. But even with such a high yield the units of MSTY are down more than 20 per cent this year. ETF owners, attracted by the giant income, still haven't made any real money, even though MicroStrategy stock itself is up about 36 per cent so far this year. Yet, this has not stopped investors from pouring money into the ETF, now at about US$5.6 billion in assets. And this is just one example. There are now many dozens of such super-high yielding ETFs. We think investors need to be careful here. In addition to getting seduced by high yields, investors could be in trouble in a different type of market, or if the derivative market seizes up, as it has done before. Peter Hodson, CFA, is founder of 5i Research Inc., an independent investment research network helping do-it-yourself investors reach their investment goals. He is also portfolio manager for the i2i Long/Short U.S. Equity Fund. (5i Research staff do not own Canadian stocks. i2i Long/Short Fund may own non-Canadian stocks mentioned.) 5 reasons to be worried about the market today 5 reasons new market highs are not necessarily a sign to sell If you like this story, sign up for the FP Investor Newsletter. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fox News' Jesse Watters ridiculed for sharing another rule for men to follow
Fox News anchor Jesse Watters another 'rule' for men to follow — and used President Donald Trump as a model example. On 'Jesse Watters Primetime' Wednesday evening, the host showed a clip of New Jersey Democratic Senator Cory Booker erupting on the floor this week at his colleagues, accusing some of being 'complicit' with the Trump administration's policies. Democrats are 'turning on each other like the Real Housewives,' Watters said, speaking alongside an image of an enraged-looking Booker dressed as a gladiator along with the caption 'Spartacus Strikes.' He then revealed his latest in a list of rules of how 'real' men should act. 'Rules for men: control your emotions,' Watters said. 'You never see Trump lose his cool — even when they arrested him and put him on trial.' Trump, who was arrested in Georgia in August 2023 in relation to 2020 election interference charges, appears to be scowling in his mugshot as he stares down the barrel of the camera. He pleaded not guilty. In a more recent example, on Thursday, the president posted a scathing message on Truth Social about Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, using his signature mix of some all-caps text and name-calling. "Jerome 'Too Late' Powell has done it again!!! He is TOO LATE, and actually, TOO ANGRY, TOO STUPID, & TOO POLITICAL, to have the job of Fed Chair," Trump wrote. Social media users quickly suggested that Trump may not have been the best example to use, with several pointing out the president's social media tirades. 'Oh yeah, Trump never whines or complains about the world being against him. Never the victim. Sure,' one X user remarked. Another sarcastically wrote: ''Trump never loses his cool?' @JesseBWatters must've missed the all-caps meltdowns, the table-pounding depositions, and the tantrums over toilets. If that's stoicism, I'm the Queen of England.' 'Apparently, man's man Jesse doesn't follow Trump on social media,' yet another said. Watters' so-called 'Rules for Men' haven't historically been well-received. 'I have rules for men,' Watters told 'The Five' in March. 'They're just funny, they're not that serious. Like, you don't eat soup in public. You don't cross your legs. And you don't drink from a straw. And one of the reasons you don't drink from a straw is the way your lips purse. It's very effeminate.' He added: 'Men don't wave simultaneously with both hands. We wave with one hand, not both hands at the same time.' Past photos of the Fox News host drinking with a straw quickly resurfaced on social media. Others also posted photos of Trump, who Watters often voices support for, using a straw. In June, Watters revealed another one of his rules. 'A man should never Photoshop his picture — ever. A man who Photoshops his picture is a woman,' he declared.
