20 min read


Geopolitics - Nov 3 2018

Technological inequality has always had a major impact on global politics and the world economy. The most technologically advanced states became the most successful, gained undisputed military superiority and begin to impose their will onto less developed countries.

In the 20  century, two world wars and the
extraordinary acceleration of scientific and
technological progress made this impact even greater.
With the third decade of the 21  century approaching,
the avalanche­like growth of machine learning
capabilities has forced us to talk about the spectrum
of IT technologies, unified by the metaphorical term
“Artificial Intelligence” (AI) as the key factor in
economic, geopolitical and military power of the
coming decades.

2018 marked a watershed. Previously, when the
media, society and politicians discussed the future
challenges and dangers of AI development, theyfocused on:
— cognitive AI agents (robots and software)
supplanting people in many professions;
— the legal and ethical problems of autonomous AI
devices (for instance, driverless cars);
— cybersecurity issues;
— the frighteningly alluring prospect of a “revolt of
the machines” in the distant, or perhaps not so distant

However, things began to change in 2018. The above­
listed threats and challenges did not exactly
disappear, but rather faded into the background as
politicians and the military became aware of the  ??????
???????????????????????  that can be provisionally
?????????????????   ????????????????????
These trends were highlighted by the fact that, in
drafting their national AI strategies, many developed
countries simultaneously started to change their
attitudes towards two basic principles that had
previously seemed unshakeable:
— instead of comprehensive international
cooperation, the global division of labour, the
introduction of open platforms and the mutual
overflow of talent, countries are now placing an
emphasis on  ?????????????? , which proclaims the
priority of the economic and military interests of one’s
own country as the principal objective of its national
AI strategy;
— instead of the separation of state and business that
is traditional for many countries, the course has been
set for  ?????????????????? , i.e. integrating governmental
and private resources, aligning the pace of
introducing AI innovations and refocusing strategic
objectives on the state gaining economic, geopolitical
and military advantages in the international arena.
The strengthening of these trends promotes the shift
of state priorities in developed countries  ?????????????
??????????????????????????????? . If this trend
continues, the world will undergo major changes in
the near future.
Maksim Karliuk:
The Ethical and Legal Issues of Artificial Intelligence
A Brief Technological
and Geopolitical
First, the  ???????????????????????????????????  of most
developed countries  ??????????????????? . Many
economic and political processes brought together
under the term  ?????????????  will undergo radical
transformations. It is possible that AI technologies
will put an end to globalization, a trend that has been
picking up pace following the fast technological
development that came after World War II. And then
????????????????????  will replace globalization.
Second,  ??????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????  will have an equally profound
impact. The integration of the goals and resources of
the state and private businesses in order to achieve
military superiority will most likely result in the
global triumph of the  ??????????????????????????????
that China has already added to its armoury, both
literally and figuratively.
As a result, international relations will be determined
by the following key factors:
—  ??????????????????  in relations between AI leaders
and outsiders;
—  ???????????????  between the leading countries that
will guide and determine subsequent development of
AI technologies.
Such race could have two possible outcomes:
A.    ?????????????? ??  after which World War IV will be
fought with sticks and stones.
B.   ??????????????????????  where the development of AI
technologies, spurred on by the arms race, will end up
generating a “ ????????? ” that will remove the opposing
parties as unnecessary.
The first option appears to be the most probable, with
the second option also being a possibility.
It is important to note that, at some point, the AI
nationalism and AI nationalization trends will be
driving their own development. As with any other
arms race, the pace and strength of these trends will
no longer depend on the degree of AI progress. And
even if AI progress turns out to be more modest than
expected, the gigantic inertia of both trends will
require much time and effort to be overcome.
2018: The Year of the
Great AI Watershed
After the end of the Cold War, the United States held
a virtually unsurpassed superpower status. The
crucial factor was its unrivalled military and
technological superiority. Nonetheless, technologies
that had previously formed the foundation of the
country’s military defense, such as high­precision
weapons, have spread throughout the world due to
globalization and technology transfer. As a result, the
rivals of the United States have developed their own
capabilities that offer a progressively greater
challenge to U.S. military superiority.
To retain and expand its military edge in future, the
U.S. Department of Defense banked on AI
technologies, the potential military use of which is
highly diversified: from improving efficiency of
logistical systems to more sensitive tasks, such as
automated control and monitoring in modern
weapons systems. The 2018 National Defense
Strategy proceeds on the assumption that AI will
mostly likely change the nature of warfare. That is
why U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick
Shanahan states that the United States “must pursue
AI applications with boldness and alacrity” [14].
There are grounds to believe that the U.S. government
has finally heard Eric Schmidt, former head of Google
and Alphabet, who called upon it last year to realize
that the “Sputnik Moment” in AI had already arrived.
Secretary of Defense  ????????????  called upon
President Trump to draft a national artificial
intelligence development strategy both for the U.S.
government and for the entire country. Mattis’ letter
to the President contained a suggestion on the
establishment of a presidential committee capable of
“inspiring a whole of country effort that will ensure
the U.S. is a leader not just in matters of defense but
in the broader ‘transformation of the human
In response to those statements,
— The “Summary of the 2018 White House Summit
on Artificial Intelligence for American Industry”
states that “the Trump Administration  ???????????????
???????  for fundamental AI research and computing
infrastructure, machine learning, and autonomous
— on July 31, 2018, the White House released
Memorandum No. M­18­22: FY 2020 Administration
Research and Development Budget Priorities [15]
naming AI  ???????????????????????????????????????
??????????  (followed by quantum informatics and
supercomputing, respectively) and mandated that the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) jointly with
the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
ensure  ??????????????????????  for these areas in all
federal agencies in 2019–2020.
It so happened that it was not just the U.S.
government that experienced a “Sputnik Moment” in
The number of countries announcing national AI
development strategies more than tripled compared
to 2017.
In 2017, AI enthusiasts (Japan, Canada and
Singapore) inaugurated the marathon of signing
national AI strategies. The trio was followed by China,
one of the two claimants to global AI leadership,
which deployed its main financial weapon.
Now, in 2018, it is much easier to pinpoint those who
have not yet publicized their national AI strategy,
since the United Kingdom, Germany, France and a
dozen more countries have already presented theirs.
As it should have been expected, different countries
have set forth different goals and approaches in their
national AI strategies.
The strategies that have been drafted upon the
instructions of national governments are also
different in length and the degree of their elaboration
and detail.
????????????? [17] and includes a basic description of the
three stages in establishing a national AI as a service
by 2030.
Three phases of establishing a national AI as a
service in Japan by 2030
A set of roadmaps for the three priority areas
(productivity; health, medical care and welfare; and
mobility) is attached to the basic outline.
In addition, Japan has also developed a plan for
integrating AI technologies with technologies in
principal economic sectors in the three priority areas.
The three phases of this integration demonstrate the
level of planned technological progress and social
?????????? , with the following documents being
— The 180­page “AI in the UK: Ready, Willing and
Able?” report [18] published by the Authority of
House of Lords in April 2018, which is largely based
on the 77­page report “Growing the Artificial
Intelligence Industry in the UK” [19] by Dame Wendy
Hall, Professor of Computer Science at the University
of Southampton, and Dr. Jerome Pesenti, CEO of
— Two volumes of written and oral evidence by
professionals and experts confirming the contents of
the report (Volume 1 contains 223 pieces of written
evidence on 1581 pages [20]; Volume 2 contains 57
pieces of oral evidence obtained at 22 sessions and set
forth on 423 pages [21])
— A 40­page Government response to House of Lords
Artificial Intelligence Select Committee’s Report on AI
in the UK [22] presented to Parliament by the
Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial
Strategy by Command of Her Majesty
Having carefully studied the entire set of documents
published as of end of August 2018, the author has
distinguished two key trends that are clearly
manifested in all “national strategies”:
1.    Setting a course for AI nationalism
2.    Setting a course for AI nationalization
Now we need to explain what these trends mean.
AI Nationalism
The First Source of AI
nationalism: Ultra­High
The term AI nationalism became popular immediately
after Ian Hogarth published an essay of the same title
[23]. The essay defines AI nationalism as a new kind
of geopolitics driven by continued rapid progress in
machine learning in developed countries.
AI generates a  ???????????????????????  on national and
international levels, forcing the governments of
developed countries to act so as not to find themselves
among the losers in the new competition for AI
This competition is unique and unlike anything in the
past, including the race for the nuclear bomb and
intercontinental ballistic missiles.
AI is unique due to three factors, one economic and
two military:
1.    AI tools are universal as a means for increasing
efficiency in virtually all post­industrial sectors and
activities (the closest example of such universality is
introducing electricity everywhere).
2.    Based on prior military experience, AI’s is
assumed to have tremendous potential for
revolutionary breakthroughs
— both in developing radically new classes of
comprehensive military technological solutions (such
as stealth technologies),
— and in building radically more advanced AI­based
military intelligence and managing military logistics
and combat throughout the theatre of operations
(including the change of customary paradigms for
specific branches of the Armed Forces, as happened
with air carriers transformed from a transport for
intelligence aircraft equipped with deck guns into a
floating airfield that is super­efficient in handling
independent military tasks).
3.    The assumed capability (not yet proven, but taken
seriously by many military officials) of resolving the
nuclear containment problem favouring a particular
side (following the old cowboy wisdom of outdrawing
your enemy).
These factors are largely hypothetical. They do not
reflect real capabilities of the current AI technologies,
but are rather extrapolations into the near future,
provided that AI technologies continue to develop at
the current pace.
In other words, all three factors that transform AI into
a hypothetical means of gaining superiority in the
international arena are merely expectations of the
military and politicians.
But that does not prevent them from claiming that the
world is on the threshold of  ???????????????????????????
?????????????????????? . The Center for a New American
Security (CNAS) report “Battlefield Singularity” [24]
demonstrates how seriously the United States and
China, leaders in the AI race, treat this matter. What
is striking about this report is not only its logic and
analytics, but the gigantic list of 334 U.S. and Chinese
sources it cites.
Leonid Kovachich:
China Missed the Industrial Revolution, But It Won’t
Miss the Digital One
The Second Source of AI
Nationalism: Technological
The unprecedented importance of AI can make the
policies in this area the key element of government
policy. However, a very unpleasant problem of
?????????????????????????? , unique to AI technologies
(for more on this, see [25]), gets in the way.
Technological entanglement means that globalization
drives intertwining the interests and resources of
international companies in developing dual­use
technologies (peaceful and military). This
intertwining is emerging and strengthening as a tight­
knit and multi­faceted phenomenon.
Technological entanglement results in technological
sovereignty virtually disappearing. Even the United
States, the undisputed technological leader in AI,
finds itself in a very difficult situation due to
technological entanglement.
How can the United States retain its leading positions
in AI and prevent their technologies from leaking to
foreign rivals if:
— private business is the technological engine of the
— under globalization, international private giants,
such as Alphabet, site their AI research labs in their
chief rival (China) and hire thousands of professionals
from that country;
— Chinese investors, including China’s largest AI
companies, own significant shares in many promising
AI companies in Silicon Valley; and
— thousands of Chinese students and graduate
students study in the best United States universities?
The latest and most decisive turn in technological
entanglement was China announcing its  ????????
??????????????????????????????????  (for more on this, see
President of the Information Technology and
Innovation Foundation  ???????????????  summarized
the situation that resulted from technological
entanglement in his article published in National
Review on July 26, 2018.
— China has deployed a vast panoply of “innovation
mercantilist” practices that seek to unfairly advantage
Chinese producers, including:
o   requiring foreign companies to transfer their
technologies to Chinese firms in order to access the
Chinese market;
o   theft of foreign intellectual property;
o   manipulation of technology standards;
o   massive government subsidies; and
o   government­backed acquisitions of foreign
— The U.S. government should have one and only
major trade­policy goal at this moment: rolling back
China’s innovation­mercantilist agenda, which
threatens the United States’ national and economic
security.The potential consequences of this include: various
protectionist measures by states in order to support
“national AI champions”; restrictions (and the
possible prohibition) on transferring patents, open
research publications, and exporting AI technologies;
and also restrictions (and the possible prohibition) on
M&A transactions, the free overflow of investment
and, of course, talent both in training and in
professional activities.
Mathew Maavak:
Remote Weapons Come of Age
The Avant­Garde of AI
As of the end of August 2018, China, the United
States, India, the United Kingdom and France
announced their intention to pursue some form of AI
nationalism. These five countries have also
announced the development of AI­based  ????????
????????????????? .
—  ????? : within the framework of the 13  Five­Year
Plan, the “Artificial Intelligence 2.0” program of the
Plan of Innovative Scientific and Technical
Development of the 13  Five­Year Plan, and the
Three­Year Action Plan for Promoting Development
of Next Generation Artificial Intelligence Industry
(2018–2020) — under the umbrella of the national
Military­Civil Fusion strategy [26].
—  ????????????????? : within the framework of the
National Security Strategy [8], the National Defense
Strategy [9] and the Memorandum on the
Establishment of the Joint Artificial Intelligence
Center (JAIC) of the Department of Defense (JAIC)
—  ????? : within the framework of the National Strategy
for Artificial Intelligence drafted for the Government
by the National Institution for Transforming India
(NITI Aayog) [27] and the “AI Development Roadmap
for Ensuring India’s Defense and Security” drafted by
Tata Sons at the instruction of the Ministry of
—  ?????? : as part of (1) the sharp increase in the
country’s spending on AI to develop future weapons
systems as announced by France’s Minister of Armed
Forces Florence Parly (USD 1.83 billion); (2) the
Parliamentary “Villani Report” [28] stating that AI is
now the central political principle of ensuring
security, maintaining superiority over the country’s
potential enemies, and supporting its stance towards
its allies; (3) a roadmap of AI capabilities for weapons
and its first stage, the Man­Machine Teaming (MMT)
— When to comes to AI, the United Kingdom hopes to
become part of U.S. programs and, within the
framework of this cooperation, opened an AI Lab in
May 2018, the centre for AI applied research at the
Defense Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl)
following the relevant decision of the Secretary of
State for Defense of the United Kingdom.
All the countries mentioned declared the following
??????????????  as their principal vectors in steering the
course of AI nationalism.
1.    A policy guaranteeing the preservation of
economic and military AI first mover advantages, as
these countries consider themselves, and not without
reason, to be trailblazers in AI.
2.    A policy of preventing others from copying AI
technologies, primarily those that are easily
reproduced by any country with a similar
technological level.
3.    A policy of weakening the stimuli for international
trade that automatically result in the global spread of
AI technologies.
What is particularly noted is the “readiness to act”
using the entire arsenal of state regulation by rapidly
and decisively developing new rules and preventing
any attempts to undermine national technological AI
AI Nationalization
The fear of falling behind in the global race for AI
superiority has spawned the trend of AI nationalism.
However, things go beyond AI nationalism.
When it turned out that China’s Military­Civil Fusion
policy allowed the country, in the course of just a few
years, to effectively catch up with the United States,
the previously undisputed global AI leader, it became
clear that other countries have no other option but to
go down the same path.
Instead of the separation of state and business that is
customary for developed countries, now everyone
talks of the advantages of  ?????????????????? , i.e.
integrating the resources of public and private
companies, aligning the pace of introducing AI
innovations, and refocusing strategic objectives on the
state gaining economic, geopolitical and military
advantages in the international arena.
The AI nationalization agenda is divided into:
·      the agenda of the leaders of the AI race,
·      the agenda of the outsiders of the AI race.
The Leaders’ Agenda: The
United States and China
Some experts argue that China has barely covered half
the ground of the United States in terms of AI [29].
Calculating the AI­potential index from the
methodology in [29] demonstrates that China has
covered just over half the ground of the United States
in terms of AI.
However, a comprehensive analysis of China’s civil
and military breakthrough technologies [30], the
results of hearings in the United States–China
Economic and Security Review Commission [31] and
its final report to the U.S. Congress [32], as well as the
latest report on the in­depth analysis of China’s
weapons [33] recorded an approximate parity in the
development of AI technologies in the United States
and China.
When examining the nine sectors of dual­use
technologies that can be considered the most
important in terms of breakthroughs, experts from
the U.S. Congress classified AI as a group of three
classes of technologies where the United States and
China have approximate parity [31].
Unlike the high­quality, but civil report [29], these
experts take three special factors into account in their
conclusions [30–33]:
1.    In China’s long­term development strategy,
autonomous unmanned systems and AI will have the
main development priority.
2.    The specifics of China’s AI development roadmap,
which prioritizes developing “intellectual (智能化)
weapons,” including it on the list of four critical
technological “strategic frontier” areas that set the
objective of surpassing the U.S. military by using the
“leapfrog development” (跨越发) strategy: a strategy
of jumping over several development stages.
3.    China’s intention to use AI to “accelerate the
development of shashoujian (杀手锏) armaments,”
which ironically, is translated into English as “Trump
This is not a reference to President Trump, however,
but rather to the so­called “shashoujian armaments.”
The term “shashoujian” (杀手锏) can be translated
differently: in English, it is a “trump card” or
“assassin’s mace”; in Russian, it translates as
“hitman.” The word refers to the Chinese legend
where shashoujian was used to unexpectedly disable a
stronger enemy by using a clever trick (something like
the sling David used to defeat Goliath). In his time,
Jiang Zemin, former General Secretary of the Central
Committee of the Communist Party of China, used the
term “shashoujian” in the following manner:
“Whatever the enemy fears most, that is what we
should develop.” Since then, China has established the
priority development of its “Trump Card,” the
“shashoujian armament” that strikes at the enemy’s
most vulnerable places. AI has proved very useful for
such an approach.
Nikolay Markotkin:
Close Encounters of the Third Millennium
The United States Armed Forces is perfectly aware
that China is banking on its “Trump Card.” Robert
Work, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense in 2014–
2017, said that, “The whole ‘Chinese theory of victory’
is known (in translation) as ‘systems destruction
warfare’ because it focuses on electronically
paralyzing command­and­control rather than
physically destroying tanks, ships, and planes.”
The simplest and most obvious example is using the
swarm intelligence of micro drones to disable aircraft
Another example is the intellectualization of missiles.
Here AI is set the objective of enabling “missiles to
have advanced capabilities in sensing (感知),
decision­making (决策), and execution (执行) of
missions, including through gaining (认知) a degree of
‘cognition’ and the ability to learn” [34].
A high­ranking Pentagon official recently said that
“the first nation to deploy an electromagnetic pulse
weapon on the battlefield to disable enemy systems
would reshape the face of warfare. Once again, it is far
from obvious that is a race the United States will win.”
He refers precisely to integrating the capabilities of
electromagnetic pulse weapons and AI.
A detailed description of the entire landscape of
potential threats stemming from China’s priority
introduction of AI technologies into cutting edge
weapons systems can be found in [35].
Thus far, the United States and China are head to
head in AI. Many experts, however, believe that, in no
more than ten years, China’s authoritarianism will
summarily defeat U.S. democracy due to its absolute
dominance in terms of the volume of data collected.
China already has four times the volume of data that
the United States posesses. And the gap is growing.
As Kai­Fu Lee, one of the most knowledgeable
professionals in the U.S.–China AI confrontation and
a former colleague of mine at Silicon Graphics, once
said, “In fact, there is only one fundamental
innovation in AI, and that is deep learning.
Everything that is done now in AI is just fine­tuning
deep learning to meet the needs of specific applied
Deep learning requires as much data as possible. And
the one in possession of greater volume of big data
has already most likely won the competition.
Although, as Jack London’s Smoke Bellew said, “The
race was not lost until one or the other won,” and the
United States will not just give up in the  ???????????? .
A duopoly looms in the near future. Thus far, the two
global AI leaders, the United States and China, adhere
to radically opposed strategies:
— China: continuing to do THAT regardless
— The United States: doing everything to hamper
China in doing THAT
For a detailed description of THAT, see [36]. In short,
it boils down to the following:
A.   Using protectionist measures to protect its own
market from import and competition in AI.
B.   State­sponsored IP theft through physical theft,
cyber­enabled espionage and theft, evasion of U.S.
export control laws, and counterfeiting and piracy.
C.   Coercive and intrusive regulatory gambits to force
technology transfer from foreign companies, typically
in exchange for limited access to the Chinese market.
D.   Methods of information harvesting that include
open source collection; placement of non­traditional
information collectors at U.S. universities, national
laboratories, and other centres of innovation; and
talent recruitment of business, finance, science, and
technology experts.
E.   State­backed, technology­seeking Chinese
The Agenda of the Outsiders
in the AI Race
The real situation is such that everyone is the outsider
in the AI race except for its leaders, the United States
and China. Although technologically developed
countries, such as France, Germany, India and South
Korea appear to be incomparable to third­world
countries in the level of AI technologies, the fate of
becoming AI colonies of the leading countries awaits
them all.
The absolute leadership of the United States in
academic publications on deep learning. Source:
Digital Transformation Monitor
In ??????????????????? , 21  century colonizers receive
Big Data for their AI technologies, the new equivalent
of gold and silver, while the only thing colonial
countries can do is hope for the civilizational spirit of
AI neo­colonialists and for their financial assistance.
However, in this situation, as in the race between the
two leaders, “the race was not lost until one or the
other won.”
For instance, European countries are trying to do at
least something to avoid the fate of becoming colonies
that supply the United States with big data.
Recognizing their loss to the United States and China
in infrastructure and scale of their AI programs,
European specialists describe their AI capabilities as
“blobs of brilliance” and dream of ways to “take those
blobs of brilliance and bring them all together.”
“A Special Outsider”: Russia’s
Stance in the AI Race
The question of Russia’s potential and prospects is
somewhat more complicated than simply filing it
under the outsiders of the race.
First, there is a theoretical scenario where outsiders
could gain an advantage over the leaders in the field
of AI for military purposes. This scenario has
remained outside the scope of our article, since it does
not aim to consider all possible scenarios, but only the
most probable ones. However, it is necessary to
mention a scenario that favours outsiders, since it is
being considered and analysed by very influential
experts. This scenario was discussed in the Future of
War issue of Foreign Policy’s Fall 2018. Michael C.
Horowitz’s article “The Algorithms of August”
analyses the prospects of this scenario and sets Russia
apart as a “special outsider” that is, like China,
potentially capable of competing for leadership.
Second, the combination of Russia’s traditionally
asymmetric responses to geopolitical challenges, with
its still considerable scientific and technological
Soviet legacy, can have major consequences at the
junctions of AI technologies and new classes of
weapons (from hypersonic to electronic warfare). And
there is also the junction of AI with quantum
computing and some other things that might radically
change the balance of military power in the near
So nothing is clear­cut with Russia, and this fact
should be studied separately, since the best works on
the subject (for instance, “The Impact of
Technological Factors on the Parameters of Threats to
National and International Security, Military
Conflicts, and Strategic Stability”) barely touch on
these matters.
Where is AI Nationalization
Taking Us?
However different the agendas of the leaders and
outsiders of the AI race are, they presuppose the same
steps essentially leading to Chinese­style AI
Of course, the giants of AI business will resist this for
all they are worth. For instance, on June 1, 2018,
Google announced that it would not renew its contract
to support a U.S. military initiative called Project
Maven. This project is the military’s first operationally
deployed “deep­learning” AI system used to classify
images collected by military drones. The company’s
decision to withdraw came after roughly 4000 of
Google’s 85,000 employees signed a petition to ban
Google from building “warfare technology.”
The response followed immediately.
As early as June 6, 2018, Gregory Allen, an expert of
the Center for New American Security, published an
article entitled “AI Researchers Should Help with
Some Military Work.” The article formulates the new
“ethical imperative” for commercial AI companies:
“The ethical choice for Google’s artificial­intelligence
engineers is to engage in select national­security
projects, not to shun them all.”
Allen writes about Google’s proposals to recuse
themselves from participating in Project Maven:
“Such recusals create a great moral hazard.
Incorporating advanced AI technology into the
military is as inevitable as incorporating electricity
once was, and this transition is fraught with ethical
and technological risks. It will take input from
talented AI researchers, including those at
companies such as Google, to help the military to
stay on the right side of ethical lines.”
The AI industry community rushed to the aid of
Google, which had essentially been accused of its
employees placing their ethical principles above
national security. In July,  ????????? , the founders of
DeepMind, a founder of Skype and several renowned
IT professionals called upon their colleagues to sign
the pledge not to develop AI­based “lethal
autonomous weapons,” aka “killer robots” (for more
on this, see [37]).
In August, 116 renowned AI professionals and experts
signed a petition calling upon the United Nations to
prohibit lethal autonomous weapons. In their
statement, the group states that developing such
technologies will result in a “third revolution in
warfare” equal to the invention of gunpowder and
nuclear weapons.
While the United Nations remains silent,  ??????
??????? , Senior Advisor to NATO, offered his
response, noting that such initiatives are supremely
complacent and risk granting authoritarian states an
asymmetric advantage.
“These naive hippy developers from Silicon Valley
don’t understand — the CIA should force them,”
Gaycken said.
“Forcing to understand” applies not only to the giants
of the AI industry, such as Google, but to a host of
promising startups working on the cutting edge of AI
“Startups have to be embedded into large corporate
structures, to have access to the kind of data they
require, to build high­quality AI,” Gaycken believes.
The same logic applies to individual AI professionals:
they should also work on national security tasks.
“There are also clear differences in how talent can be
utilised in more authoritarian systems. The
command and control economies of authoritarian
countries can compel citizens, experts and scientists
to work for the military. ‘Where you require very
good brains to understand what is going on and to
find your niche, to find specific weaknesses and build
specific strengths — in those countries they simply
force the good guys to work for them,’” Gaycken
Such a picture is hard to imagine in the United States:
— AI startups working for giant AI corporations;
— Giant AI corporations working for the military;
— AI professionals working where the military tell
them to (like “sharashkas” or R&D labs in the Soviet
labour camp system under Stalin).
But that was the case of the USSR. And this is now the
case of China…
Whether the United States will succeed in introducing
such practices ultimately depends only on the level of
threat. Any democracy ends where a high level of
danger for national security begins.
Many influential people in the United States are
convinced even now that the AI war with China is
already on. The only thing remaining is to convince
the majority of Americans of the same. After the
election of Trump, it does not seem all that
??????????????? Founder and Chief Technology Officer,
Witology, Chairman of Board of League of
Independent Experts, RIAC Expert
You can actually participate in the global efforts to
cripple the Deep State organized criminal cabal's
ability for genocide, while enjoying healthcare
freedom at the same time, by boycotting Big Pharma for


Copy & Paste the link above for Yandex translation to Norwegian.

WHO and WHAT is behind it all ? : >

The bottom line is for the people to regain their original, moral principles, which have intentionally been watered out over the past generations by our press, TV, and other media owned by the Illuminati/Bilderberger Group, corrupting our morals by making misbehaviour acceptable to our society. Only in this way shall we conquer this oncoming wave of evil.


Sorry about the missing sentences - read between the lines.



All articles contained in Human-Synthesis are freely available and collected from the Internet. The interpretation of the contents is left to the readers and do not necessarily represent the views of the Administrator. Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). Human-Synthesis will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. Human-Synthesis grants permission to cross-post original Human-Synthesis articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified.