Archive link: https://archive.vn/A0CUB
The US and China are competing for global leadership in artificial intelligence as the technology rapidly advances. Photo: Shutterstock
The United States should start preparing for scenarios where extreme measures must be taken to stop China from achieving artificial general intelligence (AGI), according to a former White House official, including state-backed espionage and military strikes on Chinese data centres.
Jacob Stokes, deputy director of the Indo-Pacific Security Program at the Centre for a New American Security (CNAS), said at an online event on Thursday that various US agencies, including the Department of Defense and the National Security Agency, should begin assessing what intelligence they need to justify taking such actions.
“Trying to think through the particulars of that will be especially important, in part because it will help policymakers … start to work backwards based on the unique nature of the technology, in the same way that in a past era, policymakers would learn about nuclear weapons and … work backwards from the science to the policy implications,” he said.
In a new CNAS report published last week, the former Obama administration national security staffer called for the US government to consider the feasibility of diplomatic, espionage, cyber and kinetic measures to prevent China from achieving AGI first.
AGI is a hypothetical AI system that can achieve human levels of performance across a wide variety of tasks. The report, titled “Superpowers and AGI”, explores how the imminent arrival of AGI might affect US-China geopolitical competition.
The US currently enjoys a months-long lead over China in frontier AI models, according to Epoch AI. However, China could make a “surprise technological breakthrough” that means it is close to achieving or achieves AGI first, Stokes wrote, citing China’s advances in areas such as robotics and other forms of “embodied AI”.
If this were the case, the US government should consider extreme actions such as military strikes on the data centres that train and run the Chinese AGI system, Stokes wrote, including preventive strikes before China develops AGI.
As AI technology grows in importance economically and militarily, the data centres that form the backbone of the AI industry have emerged as military targets. In March, Iran bombed Amazon data centres in the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain as part of its conflict with the US.
According to Stokes, US government agencies would have to work out what facilities to attack and with which weapons, while considering the risk that the strikes lead to a general war between the two countries.
William Hartung, an arms analyst at the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington non-profit organisation, also warned that any strikes on Chinese data centres would “risk starting a shooting war between two nuclear armed powers that could have tragic consequences for all concerned”.
“Striking Chinese data centres based on how they might or might not be used in the future would be the height of recklessness,” he said.
Another option would be to reverse engineer or “steal” China’s AGI technology, Stokes wrote, which would be justified “legally and normatively” because of China’s own alleged history of stealing US intellectual property.
However, he noted that the US government and intelligence apparatus have “not been organised for espionage to gather technological secrets for decades”.
The stark assessment comes as US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping are set to have talks in Washington later this month on AI governance as the technology continues to improve, posing growing risks to national and global security.
The “best case scenario” for the talks is that the two sides find the talks “constructive”, Stokes said on Thursday, rather than any expectations of any breakthroughs on key governance issues.
Reads like a Dr. Strangelove character. Salivating for an excuse to (attempt to) bomb China. Wrapping it in rhetoric about AGI is a shoddy cover for several reasons. Such as the fact that AGI is largely a marketing buzzword rather than a concrete achievable goal, that AI advancements from China’s end are more likely to be open sourced or talked about openly in papers than be super duper secret (so why would you need to set up elaborate operations to “steal” it), or that striking some data centers after they’ve achieved a breakthrough is not going to reverse the knowledge they gained.
On top of that, China is a productive powerhouse and is used to doing more with less, so they would more readily adapt and keep doing research anyway. As far as I can tell, this boils down to US war hawks being in denial about the material truths of China and because the only language these war hawks know is violence, thinking if they bomb China, this will somehow reverse the trend. The only thing that bombing China will do is hasten the demise of the western ruling elite by rupturing what little stability the empire still has to work with.
if ol Maverick were still around, what witty tune would he sing towards the goal of bombing China?
Honestly, I see this article less as a call for war due to an absurdly stupid reason, and more as a way to continue propping up the AI bubble. We all know that AGI is a complete bullshit prospect, especially at this point in time for our political economy.
However, to me, this reads more like:
“See AGI, is actually achievable and real possibility, and we’re in a deep competition against China over it.”
When, in reality, China is carefully structuring the development of AI towards where it’s useful, and steadily developing. They aren’t trying to achieve some Hail Mary, they’re just logically applying a new technology where it is able to aid production.
By stating that AGI is in fact real, and that it’s an exstistentional battle that would require the US to take drastic action, the article continues to prop up the ludicrous gamble that is the AI Bubble.
In my opinion at least, that’s what the primary objective of this article is.
I’d love to hear other comrades thoughts on that analysis though.
Well, first off Deepseek said they were gunning for AGI. Second, I’ve been keeping up with the hardware they got working in the labs of Peking and Fudan.
From Peking we got this ternary CNT processor: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3301229/chinese-scientists-build-worlds-first-ai-chip-made-carbon-and-its-super-fast
And this analog chip: https://www.livescience.com/technology/computing/china-solves-century-old-problem-with-new-analog-chip-that-is-1-000-times-faster-than-high-end-nvidia-gpus
And Fudan’s got this non-volatile storage faster than RAM and with less latency: https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/china-worlds-fastest-flash-memory-device
And a way to store info with one electron instead of 200,000: https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/china-data-storage-single-electron
China is also the ones behind 6G. There’s probably a bunch of other stuff I’m forgetting.
I may be hopeful and a minority but I think the US’s “fears” are well-founded, just as they’re “right” to fear communism itself; as an existential threat that makes their way of things obsolete.
Thank you forbthe further information.
I still agree with your view. AGI is more of a term to hype up investors than an actual technological goal. AI will continue advancing as it ever was, specially after the LLM hype is over. The real fear the US has is if China becomes the lead global exporter of AI products, which include both software (LLMs and, better yet, SLMs) and AI-related hardware. A world of many companies around the world building their own Cloud and AI solutions and datacenters using Huawei chips and Alibaba/DeepSeek models. Losing this market is the US greatest fear.
AI will continue advancing as it ever was, specially after the LLM hype is over
The question is if LLMs are going to accelerate AGI research, not just by themselves but also by the massive investment into computing power and researchers.
It sounds impossible that it doesn’t, and could accelerate it even by an order of magnitude. Lets HOPE it takes long, or at least 10-20 years because that gives China time to overtake US chip making. If the US is first it makes an abysmal outcome for humanity much more likely.
LLMs are indeed a qualitative leap over other computer data generation architectures because they were able to process more complex tasks with some simple unstructured human input. However LLMs are still far away from an all encompassing AI model. We still have other algorithms in computer vision, optimization and others which other kinds of AI architectures are more capable of delivering results in their specific domains.
Regarding AGI there isn’t even a consensus over what consists intelligence and what would be actionable goals of reaching AGI. AGI has no clear definition or meaning, not even top researchers have a consensus on what does it mean. Currently, like Miguel Nicolelis said in some interviews, AI is neither artificial nor intelligence, it’s an algortithm that repeats patterns found in data (code, text, images, videos) created by us that is fed to these models, which then perform tasks we determine for them. So, in my very humble opinion, I don’t think we are anywhere near of an autonomous quasi-human intelligent agent, but more like a pattern matching program, one which is very expensive, consumes a lot of energy, can’t define tasks on its own, needs a constant stream of data generated by us, and can’t even properly define success in the tasks it does, at best works under our supervision.
Note that not being an AGI does not mean it’s not useful or powerful. It is a revolutionary piece of tech. The crux of the conflict between China and US is not about who will reach AGI first, but who will dominate the computing market in the next 30 years. The US was the main center of computing in the last 70 years and it’s one of the main areas the US has a lead over all other countries. But China is making leaps in its own computing industry, including chip making and cutting edge software, which will simply end US dominance over this area. And this will simply mean the end of the US hegemony.
So China does represent an existential threat to the US, not because of AGI, but because it’s the big challenger of the US industry. Note that all financial architecture of the US depends on the US leading the world economy. Who the hell would want US bonds if China is the go to shop for most of the industrial needs of the world? Who the hell would care about the US stock market if all the best cutting edge companies in the world are within the Chinese borders?
This is also why if China achieves technological dominance over the US, the only thing left for maintaining their current financial architecture is to rely on war might to maintain US hegemony, and force other countries to maintain bonds and stocks of US assets. But what if we start to have Irans and Yemens popping out all around the world, what this hegemony on the military industrial complex would even mean?
who will dominate the computing market in the next 30 years
That’s definitely true. I just read about this “Pax Silicon Boobs” and other moves the US makes: Malaysia Eyes Huawei Chips for AI Project Despite US Warning - Lemmy
I’m just very weary about this Chinese Room fallacy people seem to cling to. But in my experience there isn’t really any point arguing about it and it’s not as if we could influence anything in that area one way or another. I’m just someone who is willing to give an electric sheep the benefit of the doubt and count it.
more like a pattern matching program, one which is very expensive, consumes a lot of energy, can’t define tasks on its own, needs a constant stream of data generated by us, and can’t even properly define success in the tasks it does, at best works under our supervision.
Reminds me both of a toddler. And this cute robot from Andor.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Yeah literally every Chinese AI lab has AGI as a stated goal, it’s of course a vague and essentially meaningless concept but still… you can’t say a subjective term is unachievable, the only barrier to AGI’s existence is having a convincing enough argument as to why your tech deserves that label.
Based off what I read, it means an AI that can solve any cognitive problem humans could and possibly more. Including how to make a better AI which may be the kicker.
Delusional, the US doesn’t stand a chance against China
They’re losing so badly against Iran. What makes them think they have any hope of winning against China?
Pure imperial delusion
So they need AGI to defeat China but also need to defeat China so that China does not come up with AGI first. So the only thing inevitable is not defeating China. Got it. 🤣
(I’ve just rolled with it that AGI is even possible with current Western LLM development.)
General intelligence could’ve been pretty cheap in the US. Just build free hospitals, schools and give intelligent agents proper jobs and upbringing. /s
imagine if WW3 started because the US bombed a Chinese data center.
Government creates vague and baseless excuses to vilify its most significant rival. More at 11!
They’ll set the whole world ablaze than let the free peoples of the world have just one sliver of it.
this should come as no surprise to anyone
AGI of course really meaning “not being able to stabilize our investment bubble in overhyped technology”
China isn’t even aiming for AGI iirc.
Deepseek said it was.
Yeah Chinese AI companies are doing the same things US ones are by and large, the difference is that the regulatory environment prevents them from running roughshod over the social fabric and the state control over the finance sector means that China hasn’t seen a trillion dollar AI bubble emerge.
which is actually contributing to their need to be more innovative and efficient while also reaping the benefits of siphoning the advances from the US based idiot dumping trillions into training their autocorrect tools.
Okay so I looked into it more and yes Chinese AI companies are attempting to achieve AGI but it is not a structural priority (or necessity) like it is in the United States.
Actually for China it’s far more of a structural priority than for the US because AI development is all over China’s latest 5 year plan
I was wondering if they’d think to do this. Crazy idiots.
So to everyone doubting I gotta ask: China is communist, right? Realization of communism would require a powerful AI, I think. With this many people, automation would have to be very highly advanced. It’s in China’s interest. I genuinely think they’re out to build artificial superintelligence. It’s one of those things where if it’s possible it’s inevitable because the march of tech hasn’t stopped and China’s the furthest one on said march.
Jacob Stokes, deputy director of the Indo-Pacific Security Program at the Centre for a New American Security (CNAS), said at an online event on Thursday that various US agencies, including the Department of Defense and the National Security Agency, should begin assessing what intelligence they need to justify taking such actions.
When can it replace deputy directors of CNAS?
We gotta be close because I am seeing a lot of stupid ideas that’s sound AI generated. Who needs Skynet when you have clowns like this?
There’s no way the empire is talking about this now.
achieving artificial general intelligence first
Acting as if this is the space race or the rush to discover the steam engine. No motherfuckers, the future doesn’t insist on Asmiovs three laws of robotics or sex androids.
AGI could replace literally every single job.
By what definition of AGI? For anything to replace every job, it would need to have at least equivalent capability to humans and by that point, we’re basically talking about recreating humans but in a lab instead of through pregnancy. There are lot of roles where number of humans needed can be reduced with automation, which has been a process ongoing for a long time. But replacing every (or even most) jobs is a HUGE bar to pass. Not only in capability, but in production and maintenance, and somehow creating automation that can fulfill human-like roles without also wanting to revolt / being deserving of rights because they are too similar to humans (if they are actually sapient, then you haven’t really replaced “aware that they are aware” beings with automation).
This thread had me immediately thinking of:
Organoids The Matrix *Brave New World * Mike, the headless chicken
How we define life as brain wave activity, and how Mike clearly shows that’s wrong.
And ethicality of organoid use, since we don’t know and can’t prove sentience or none, pain or none, and other things.
Yeah that’s literally the whole goal of AI development in the west. Thats what AGI would entail.
Well I’m saying, that’s a pipe dream. It’s not a realistic definition of AGI at all.
Well what is then? Because the most common definition of AGI among researchers is that it’s an AI model capable of adapting to any economically productive task. AGI adoption would require that model to be more efficient than human workers either by doing things faster or by doing things cheaper than human employees, this is why AGI adoption would come much later than AGI.
And GPT 6 Astra is quite close theoretically, I mean someone prompted it to play a virtual piano and it did so in real time after it learned how to use the program through trial and error. Keep in mind this model will be deeply out of date in a year.
But it really doesn’t matter what you call it, if it’s AGI or just a stochastic parrot, nor does it matter if it’s conscious, sapient, sentient, whatever, if it’s capable of doing the necessary tasks in order to effectively replace the labor a human does and in a cost effective and timely manner that will lead to mass job loss.
Because the most common definition of AGI among researchers is that it’s an AI model capable of adapting to any economically productive task.
I would want sources on such a claim (though it’s also a claim that is hard to prove, given you’re saying “most common among researchers” and it’s unlikely that most researchers are focused on / talking about AGI when they have much more realistic and smaller goals to put their time into, as incremental development of the technology in one form or another). In the time I’ve been around gen AI as tech (granted, not as a researcher myself) I’ve never come across researchers who speak of it in such a way. It sounds more like the kind of thing that investor hype people like Sam Altman would peddle.
The way I’ve understood AGI in the past, in a more grounded meaning of it, is that it’s a way of talking about a theoretical AI that has generalized capabilities, rather than being strictly confined to one domain. However, this need not inherently mean we’re talking about something that is both generalist and specialist at the same time, in every task imaginable. That’s logistical absurdity.
Everything has tradeoffs and AI bubble salespeople have a bridge to sell. Behind them is the cold hard logistical realities of AI research. Some of which is real progress (I’ve seen some of it in practice), but the real progress is leagues behind the picture that the salespeople present. In actual practice, companies are finding it harder to get real value out of AI than they thought it would be. LLMs tend to be the leading marketing image of AI progress, but have major infrastructure limitations.
China’s dark factories are probably far more of a logistical breakthrough than most of the attempts to shoehorn LLMs into a workplace in the west. Automation is real and does real stuff, but AI is not a panacea and is not on track to be one any time soon.
Well said honestly. I just think underestimating AI is a loosing battle because it’s an exponential development so the picture will be drastically different a year from now and even more drastically different another year from now. I mean just a few years ago models couldn’t even form an essay properly and now they’ve already become the standard in coding and are posing actual cybersecurity risks
Jacob Stokes sounds like a real asshole. I bet he is going places.
I wonder if they are also considering bombing US data centers if some plutocrat achieves AGI in secret. Or if they are considering bombing the white house to allow for regime change and diplomatic solutions. Because if you were actually concerned about AGI you should be far more concerned about the sociopathic idiots running the USA.
