An AI Race for Strategic Advantage

Abstract

The rhetoric of the race for strategic advantage is increasingly being used with regard to the development of artificial intelligence (AI), sometimes in a military context, but also more broadly. This rhetoric also reflects real shifts in strategy, as industry research groups compete for a limited pool of talented researchers, and nation states such as China announce ambitious goals for global leadership in AI. This paper assesses the potential risks of the AI race narrative and of an actual competitive race to develop AI, such as incentivising corner-cutting on safety and governance, or increasing the risk of conflict. It explores the role of the research community in responding to these risks. And it briefly explores alternative ways in which the rush to develop powerful AI could be framed so as instead to foster collaboration and responsible progress.

The Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines

“…If the own "team", framed in a nationalist way, does not keep pace, so the consideration, it will simply be overrun by the opposing "team" with superior AI military technology. In fact, potential risks emerge from the AI race narrative, as well as from an actual competitive race to develop AI systems for technological superiority (Cave and ÓhÉigeartaigh 2018). One risk of this rhetoric is that "impediments" in the form of ethical considerations will be eliminated completely from research, development and implementation.…”

Artificial Intelligence, Governance and Ethics: Global Perspectives

“…Themes of competition loom large over national/regional AI policies, as regards competition with other 'large' countries or jurisdictions. It is widely believed and asserted that the US and China are the global forerunners in AI research and development and are in direct competition with each other (Cave and ÓhÉigeartaigh 2018). This may be reflected in the US Executive Order being framed around preserving the US's competitive position, and also the Chinese ambition for China to become the global AI leader in 2030.…”

Defining AI in Policy versus Practice

“…One possible consequence of this is that policy documents may overly focus on the future social consequences of AI. As noted by Cave et al, [8,10], policymaker conceptions of humanoid AI may focus on the retreating horizon of systems still-to-be-created at the risk of passing over autonomous systems already in place.…”