Like this piece, like the analogy to other technological revolutions. I feel you could have said the same with fewer words and more impact. Some questions you pose are valid but a bit repetitive. Look forward to reading more, all the same!
That was an incredible amount of words for how little valuable information there is to take from them — select few relevant data points fluffed by repetitive, virtue signaling, naive, apologetic conjecture and poor analogies. Leading the world in military technology is a good thing. This is the real world where what must be done is not always the most comfortable. China is not advancing with ethics and environmentalism at the top of its priority list, so unfortunately heavy government restriction is a privilege we cannot afford. Not sure why we’re rambling about railroads.
Thanks for taking the time to read and critique the piece—I hear you on the repetition and some of the writing needing tightening up, and I appreciate the push to sharpen the argument. That said, I remain skeptical that the current trajectory of AI development will avoid entrenching surveillance practices at home—especially as it relates to security—no matter how much adversarial threats of using AI arise. Ethical considerations can't be an afterthought just because others are acting unethically. And while I get the need for pragmatism, there’s also plenty of virtue signaling baked into the consortium's rhetoric too—it’s not a one-sided issue. The railroad reference was meant to trace longer-term patterns of techno-statecraft, though I get that it may not have landed for everyone. Thanks again for engaging.
Excellent commentary!
Like this piece, like the analogy to other technological revolutions. I feel you could have said the same with fewer words and more impact. Some questions you pose are valid but a bit repetitive. Look forward to reading more, all the same!
Thanks for reading! Yes, it seems I was a bit too hasty in sending this out without some more polish.
That was an incredible amount of words for how little valuable information there is to take from them — select few relevant data points fluffed by repetitive, virtue signaling, naive, apologetic conjecture and poor analogies. Leading the world in military technology is a good thing. This is the real world where what must be done is not always the most comfortable. China is not advancing with ethics and environmentalism at the top of its priority list, so unfortunately heavy government restriction is a privilege we cannot afford. Not sure why we’re rambling about railroads.
Thanks for taking the time to read and critique the piece—I hear you on the repetition and some of the writing needing tightening up, and I appreciate the push to sharpen the argument. That said, I remain skeptical that the current trajectory of AI development will avoid entrenching surveillance practices at home—especially as it relates to security—no matter how much adversarial threats of using AI arise. Ethical considerations can't be an afterthought just because others are acting unethically. And while I get the need for pragmatism, there’s also plenty of virtue signaling baked into the consortium's rhetoric too—it’s not a one-sided issue. The railroad reference was meant to trace longer-term patterns of techno-statecraft, though I get that it may not have landed for everyone. Thanks again for engaging.