You quoted the article:

> The whole background of this AI conversation is that we’re in a race with China, and we have to win. But what is the reason we want America to win the AI race?

Right now there are two contenders for first in the AI race. The US, and China.

You spent the rest of your comment making the case that it is not good for the US to win. Implying, though not directly saying, we would be better off with China.

You can say "oh wouldn't it be nice if Europe won instead" but they don't have anything in the race right now. We're stuck with the US or China.

> You spent the rest of your comment making the case that it is not good for the US to win. Implying, though not directly saying, we would be better off with China.

This is you putting words in my mouth. It's bad if either wins.

You seem to be operating under an unspoken personal belief that an AI race "win" inevitably spills out into global dominance.

I don't know that it won't, but you likewise don't know that it will, and I'm not beholden to debate things from your chosen premise.

I think AI will be bad for whoever is being targeted by it's controllers, but I don't think it will intrinsically disrupt the military spheres that exist now as a result of nuclear weaponry.

China will use its AI to hurt the people it's hurting now.

The US will use its AI to hurt the people it's hurting now.

Imho, the idea of an AI arms race "winner" is just the new face of the securitization rhetoric that we used to justify our military excursionism during the Cold War.