The AGI Threat: Militarizing the Future

The recent calls by a former White House staffer for military strikes against China’s potential achievement of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) have sparked a heated debate about the implications of this technology on national security. While some argue that a preemptive strike is necessary to prevent China from gaining an upper hand in AGI, others warn of the dangers of militarizing the future.

The discussion around AGI is hindered by a lack of clarity surrounding what it actually means. Is AGI a single entity that will suddenly come online and threaten global stability? Or is it a collection of incremental advancements that will gradually shift the balance of power between nations? The truth lies somewhere in between: AGI is likely to be a complex and multifaceted technology that will evolve over time.

The CNAS report, which calls for diplomatic, espionage, cyber, and kinetic measures to prevent China’s AGI ambitions, suffers from this same lack of clarity. Rather than outlining specific goals and limitations, it assumes these measures are sufficient to address the problem. What exactly does it mean to “prevent” China from achieving AGI? Is it a matter of disrupting their research and development efforts, or is it something more fundamental?

Jacob Stokes, deputy director of the Indo-Pacific Security Program at CNAS, has been a leading voice pushing for this approach. In an online event last week, he emphasized the importance of policymakers working backwards from the science to the policy implications. But what does that mean in practice? How do you “work backwards” from a complex and rapidly evolving technology like AGI?

The danger is not just that we’re militarizing the future, but also that we’re failing to understand it. By treating AGI as a threat to be contained or defeated, rather than a challenge to be addressed through diplomacy and cooperation, we risk perpetuating a cycle of competition and antagonism that will only serve to exacerbate the problem.

The parallels with the nuclear era are striking. Policymakers in the 1940s and 1950s were similarly focused on preventing the other side from achieving a technological breakthrough. However, they ultimately came to realize that the real challenge lay not in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, but in managing their use.

Similarly, when it comes to AGI, we need to think more creatively about how to address its implications. Rather than fixating on who gets there first or how to prevent China from achieving AGI, we should focus on what this technology means for global stability and cooperation. How will we work together to ensure that AGI is developed in a way that benefits humanity as a whole?

As the debate over AGI continues to rage, one thing is clear: we need to do better than simply militarizing the future. We need to think more critically about what this technology means for us all and start working towards a solution that prioritizes cooperation and mutual understanding.

The US government would be wise to take a step back from its current fixation on military options and consider a more nuanced approach. Rather than trying to prevent China’s AGI ambitions through espionage or cyber measures, we should work with other nations to develop international norms and standards for the development and use of this technology.

Ultimately, our focus should shift from who gets there first to what this technology means for us all. By doing so, we can begin to build a more stable and secure future for humanity, rather than simply perpetuating a cycle of competition and antagonism.