AI Arms Race Microsite

What Is This Essay About__

Interactive microsite ___ Maria De Martino

THE_AI_ARMS_RACE_

Access Your AI Guide__

start_

A Call To Action

Geography and the Referent Object

Data The New Securitized Resource

A Human Security Issue Us Versus Them

Work Cited

Securitization: Key Actors The Media

Securatization:Key Actors Politicians

The AI Arms Race

Please click on any page to be directed to a specific topic.

CLick here to unlock the info in the polar bear

This competition, driven by ideological differences, threatens to reintroduce Cold War-like tensions. The race is fundamentally about whose values will shape AI development.

“any government with the authority to govern the technology would have a “global totalitarian character”(Booth and Pillay 2024).

The US and China are trying to secure their power on the global stage. As Peter Thirl notes,

Global power dynamics

This dynamic underscores a security dilemma: one’s gain is seen as the other person’s loss. Each nation’s actions to secure resources, such as AI technology and data, and pursue their own self-interests, are perceived as threats by others, escalating tensions. Experts in ethics and arms control warn that portraying AI development as an arms race risks fostering unnecessary secrecy and competition, undermining collaboration.

"states exist in an international system…characterized by the possibility of war, which drives military and economic competition, and sometimes into war itself" (Baele and Thomson 2016)

The United States and China are the key players in the AI arms race, competing for global dominance. From a realist perspective, these nations act as rational players competing for scarce resources in a zero-sum environment. As written by Baele and Thomson

Realist Theory

The AI Arms Race

1990s

2016

Where can the parallel be drawn?

It is possible to observe the securitization of climate change and the actions taken by countries in a manner similar to the AI Arms Race, helping people understand the consequences of securitization and predict how states may act. Like the AI Arms Race, climate change has undergone a process of securitization, prompting countries to invest in military capabilities and secure their resources and borders in the event of icebreakers (Thomas 2017). Going back to the Arctic scenario, states have escalated tensions by militarizing the region, building threats, and grappling with the same issue of international collaboration versus competition. Most importantly, as reported in an article by English and Gardiner, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of threats, both environmental and related to the AI arms race, that disregards their geopolitical context (English and Gardiner 2020). This can be traced back to the theory articulated by Ken Booth in Strategy and Ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism, the theory that individuals view the world through their own lens and interpret society from their own frame of reference, distorts the depiction of global dynamics, particularly in a military context. As a result, strategic thinking becomes clouded, creating self-fulfilling prophecies and misunderstandings while obscuring the real threats. The U.S. assumes the worst about China’s AI initiatives, just as it assumes the worst about Russian icebreakers.

where can the parallel be drawn?

click on the red squares to learn more

2021

2022-23

Securitization Timeline

The Securitization of the AI Arms Race

People often fall into the trap of misinterpreting the referent object due to how it is framed by the media and constructed by societal narratives. Moreover, they misinterpret threats because their worldview is shaped by personal biases and subjective lenses. This leads to assumptions about China as a competitive threat that will act rationally, but rationality itself is defined by the United States' perspective. There are, however, alternative explanations for China's pursuit of advancements in AI technology, particularly in the areas of privacy and surveillance, which may not center on controlling America. These motivations could be deeply rooted in China’s history and culture. Strategist Thomas Mahnken highlights that China places significant value on internal unity and freedom from external interference, committing to taking action and leveraging resources to preserve these pillars (Mahnken 2013). This perspective could explain their focus on AI advancements, especially in surveillance, as a means to efficiently maintain national order. Such technological advancements would also serve as a deterrent to foreign meddling, empowering China to assert itself as a dominant actor in global affairs. Furthermore, misinterpreting threats not only poses risks to human security (explored in the next sections) but can also lead to the exploitation and unnecessary depletion of critical resources.

Info

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, delivered this statement during an interview (AI generated Audio)

Subtitle

Securitization Theory: The Media as A Key Actor_

transcript

President Trump's history of "otherness" feelings towards Chinese people

Reveal

Reveal

Reveal

AI Extremism

Human Security: A Cultural Divide

The Clash of Civilizations

The AI Arms Race and Human Security

Data is the lifeblood of AI, often referred to as the "new oil" fueling the technological revolution. Nations are increasingly securitizing data as a critical resource for training AI systems (Walt 2023). From a realist perspective, data is a strategic asset essential for maintaining or shifting global power dynamics. In this competitive landscape, governments’ scope is acquiring and safeguarding data, turning cyberspace into a new battlefield (Cristiano et al. 2023). AI-powered autonomous cyber capabilities, digital armies, may engage in illegal data acquisition through malware or hacking, violating individual privacy and exposing vulnerabilities in target systems. Beyond this, data can be weaponized for psychological warfare through manipulation and misinformation. The Soufan Center highlights the growing risk of terrorist organizations using AI to enhance recruitment, manipulation, and radicalization efforts(. As cyberwarfare advances, such tactics could scale to more precise and widespread attacks, with devastating consequences. The public has already witnessed these risks during the 2016 Cambridge Analytica scandal, where digital manipulation played a significant role. As AI technologies evolve, the threat becomes even more severe. Sophisticated algorithms could enable highly effective digital manipulation campaigns, destabilizing nations, delegitimizing governments, eroding the ability to discern objective truth, and inciting violence. This represents an unprecedented threat to both human and global security, underscoring the critical need for ethical oversight and policymaking in the deployment of AI.

The New Securitized Resource: Data Is The New Oil_

R Coded world map, only for visual purposes

Gray's perspectives on geography’s influence on strategy underscore that, despite the rise of cyberspace, the physical space still constitutes a valid playing field. AI infrastructures are reliant on geography. The securitization of such assets represents a shift from a purely state-centered security focus to one that includes critical infrastructures as new sites of potential conflict.

Geography And The Changing Referent Object

transcript

Embracing a liberal approach to policy making can aid the risk mitigation such as biased algorithms, unregulated autonomous systems, and human discriminations . Regulation can provide a structured environment that encourages innovation while safeguarding human rights and global security, ensuring AI serves not as a weapon of division but as a force for global progress and security.

Competition incentivizes nations to reject AI regulations, as they urge taking shortcuts and liberty to pass their competitors, paving the way for risks and instabilities given by this quickly evolving powerful technology. It is imperative that nations take a liberal approach to AI, emphasizing mutual collaboration and valuing differences. A global regulatory framework can transform AI from a source of division into a better shared resource for progress.

A different perspective to “the clash” can be offered through Said’s critique. He states that it is not a clash of civilizations but one of definitions, how societies define “the other” and their relationship with them. Even civilizations are not monolithic, and recognizing internal diversity is crucial, as it dismantles the narrative that civilizations or states are inherently predisposed to clash, validating the possibility of international collaboration.

The AI arms race constitutes a dangerous paradox: the securitization of AI fuels the competition it seeks to contain and it crafts self-fulfilling prophecies of clashes and conflict. To break this predestination, it is essential to begin a strategy of de-securitization changing the framing of AI. AI should not be a battleground for dominance, but an opportunity for beneficial and collective technological progress.

Switching the Referent Object and Liberal Theory_

Work Cited

n.d. Canva: Visual Suite for Everyone. Accessed November 15, 2024. https://www.canva.com/.n.d. Vidnoz AI. Accessed November 15, 2024. https://aiapp.vidnoz.com/video/index.html?slide=video. Booth, Harry, and Tharin Pillay. 2024. “What Donald Trump's Win Means For AI.” Time. https://time.com/7174210/what-donald-trump-win-means-for-ai/. Cristiano, Fabio, Dennis Broeders, François Delerue, Frédérick Douzet, and Aude Géry, eds. 2023. Artificial Intelligence and International Conflict in Cyberspace. N.p.: Routledge. 10.4324/9781003284093. English, Robert D., and Morgan G. Gardiner. 2020. “Phantom Peril in the Arctic: Russia Doesn’t Threaten the United States in the Far North—But Climate Change Does.” Foreign Affairs, September 29, 2020. Gray, Colin. 2013. Perspectives on Strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Greenhill, Kelly M. 2022. “When Migrants Become Weapons.” Foreign Affairs, April, 2022. Huntington, Samuel. 1993. “The Clash Of Civilizations?” Foreign Affairs 72 (3): 22-49. DOI:10.2307/20045621. Mahnken, Thomas. 2013. “China's strategic culture- Can the past inform the future? Thomas Mahnken.” YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrHf7dWO22s. PartYard Marine. 2024. “AI Image Tools May Help Autonomous Ships Drive Safely in the Arctic.” PartYard. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Nw0dBsMuZZVH0Q-ctofF-NWUCof0BMX1RxgSObhdCm0/edit?tab=t.0. Roper, Will. 2020. “There's No Turning Back on AI in the Military.” WIRED, October 24, 2020. https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-theres-no-turning-back-on-ai-in-the-military/. Rusanen, Anna-Mari, and Jukka Nurminen. n.d. “Discrimination and biases - Ethics of AI.” Ethics of AI. Accessed November 15, 2024. https://ethics-of-ai.mooc.fi/chapter-6/3-discrimination-and-biases. Thomas, Micheal D. 2017. Securitization of Climate Change: Australian and United States’ Military Responses. Canberra, Australia: Spinger International Publishing. Trump, Donald. 2018. “Remarks by President Trump to the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly | New York, NY – The White House.” Trump White House. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-73rd-session-united-nations-general-assembly-new-york-ny/. Walla, Katherine. 2024. “Senator Mark Warner on the top five risks for the next administration to watch.” Atlantic Council. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/senator-mark-warner-on-the-top-five-risks-for-the-next-administration-to-watch/. Walt, Alexandr. 2023. “War, AI and the New Global Arms Race.” Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpipswT-LuE. Wilson, Kelly, and Frank Barat. 2020. “Lecture 18 Extremism, Radicalisation & Terrorism.” YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmE-WwdUrLA. World Health Organization. 2015. “WHO issues best practices for naming new human infectious diseases.” World Health Organization (WHO). https://www.who.int/news/item/08-05-2015-who-issues-best-practices-for-naming-new-human-infectious-diseases. Yam, Kimmy. 2021. “Anti-Asian hate crimes increased by nearly 150% in 2020, mostly in N.Y. and L.A., new report says.” NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/anti-asian-hate-crimes-increased-nearly-150-2020-mostly-n-n1260264. Yayboke, Erol, and Marie McAuliffe. 2023. “"Rethinking Migration is a Security Imperative: Just Not How You Might Think.”” Center for Strategic and International Studies, February 23, 2023.

The competition is often framed with the narrative of the East and the West being fundamentally different. The US states that China is framing AI over authoritarian values, while the US frames it on individual freedom. This ignores the complexities of these societies.

Nations are vying for technological supremacy in the AI arms race, intensifying existing geopolitical tensions and sparking new ones. This heightened competition is portrayed as a zero-sum game and it has led to the securitization of AI technologies. Rooting the issue in realist theory, where states prioritize power in the global hierarchy, this race emphasizes self-interest and provokes a security dilemma. Actions by one state to increase its technological capabilities are perceived as threats by others, triggering a cycle of escalations, both in public anxieties and in international tensions. Both China and the United States have securitized the AI arms race, amplifying anxieties through elite and media-driven narratives that prioritize resource securitization. This climate of fear accentuates perceptions of “otherness,” aggravating racial discrimination, undermining human security, and heightening the risk of violent conflict. The AI Arms Race exemplifies how the securitization of emerging technologies not only intensifies geopolitical rivalries but also amplifies ethical biases, threatens global security, and risks societal cohesion. This essay argues that the unchecked securitization of AI endangers both state and human security on a global scale.

The National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) excerpts demonstrate how legislative actions were triggered by the anxiety stemming from the Cambridge Analytica scandal (Schmidt and Work 2021).The emotionally charged language in its reports shaped perceptions of China as a strategic adversary. These reports served not only as analyses but also as calls to action, advocating for militarization and framing the AI arms race as a necessary competition. Constructing China as a threat, the narrative reinforced fear-based policymaking. The report portrayed action as essential to preserve the security of both the American public and the nation-state, casting China as an active competitor to U.S. dominance.

"China’s domestic use of AI is a chilling precedent for anyone around the world who cherishes individual liberty"

"States, criminals, and terrorists will conduct AI-powered cyber attacks and pair AI software with commercially available drones to create “smart weapons.”... We will not be able to defend against AI-enabled threats without ubiquitous AI capabilities and new warfighting paradigms."

"Americans have not yet grappled with just how profound the AI revolution will impact our economy, national security, and warfare"

"US must win the AI competition that is intensifying strategic competition with China…China's plans, resources, and progress should concern all Americans"

Message Decoded:__tap on the locks to access the exerpts from the NCSAI Report___

Secure Information: The NSCAI Report

• "Nabil Panchi, also a naval architect, has trained his new algorithm using thousands of Arctic images to filter out visual obstructions like rain, snow, fog, and water droplets on camera lenses."
• "Autonomous shipping has the potential to revolutionize the industry, making it more efficient and safer. According to Fortune Business Insights, the global autonomous ships market is projected to grow from $6.11 billion in 2024 to $12.25 billion by 2032."
• “We anticipate more autonomous technology on ice-navigating ships, and current systems must be reliable in the extreme Arctic environment,” Kim stated."

• The arctic is a focal point in global politics as an emerging battleground
• nations are competing for the arctic just like they compete for AI
• Any activity there is seen as potentially threatening
• testimonies of AI militarization in the Arctic

The Arctic: the heated battleground

transcript

Securitization theory is a conceptual framework that explains the process through which certain issues come to be perceived and treated as a security threat. It describes the shift in public perception, transforming an issue into one requiring urgent attention based on subjective beliefs. Applying this theory to the AI arms race reveals how it has evolved into a national security concern, elevating it from low to high politics and shifting the referent object to both the state and the individual. This transformation underscores the role of key actors, particularly politicians and the media, in framing AI as a securitized issue.

From 2022 to 2023, the United States enacted legislative measures, embedding the AI arms race into high politics. In 2022, Congress passed the CHIPS Act, which restricted the export of advanced semiconductor chips to China, decreasing its technological capabilities. Following, President Biden's Executive Order of 2023 limited U.S. investments in Chinese technology. These “soft attacks” on China, underscore an unwillingness to cooperate on AI alignment or policy development. The U.S. aims to prevent the use of its capital and expertise to advance Chinese AI capabilities. These measures reflect a realist worldview, framing AI as a critical resource to be protected and controlled while denying access to adversaries. This strategy serves as both a national defense initiative and a clear message to the global community.

The 2016 Cambridge Analytica scandal marked the first significant threat of AI to U.S. national security. This scandal involved online AI-driven manipulations that used algorithms to influence the 2016 presidential election through targeted advertising. Users were exposed to divisive misinformation, creating a polarized environment and demonstrating the powerful potential of AI-enabled psychological manipulation. This revelation paved the way for political action to regulate AI technologies. Senator Mark Warner stated, “It’s clear that, left unregulated, this market will continue to be prone to deception and lacking in transparency,” (Walla 2024). Urging Congress to pass the Honest Ads Act to enforce transparency in online political advertising. This reflects how politicians are key actors in the securitization of the AI arms race, amplifying public anxiety and shifting the narrative on AI’s risks.

The media is a highly effective tool in the securitization of the AI Arms Race, providing strategic and continuous communication to a broad audience. It shapes the portrayal of AI as an existential threat, amplifying public anxieties. There is a constructivist dimension to this, as the media frames AI as a clash of civilizations between the East and the West, reinforcing cultural and ideological divides. This dynamic poses a danger to human security, as the negative narratives propagated by the media may lead to racism and discrimination. It also jeopardizes global security by fostering a narrative of AI nationalism, which can incite extremist tendencies and a rejection of international cooperation. For instance, this is evident in narratives like the one shared by Will Roper, who stated in an interview, "It is not just our military that needs digital urgency: Our nation must wake up fast. The only thing worse than fearing AI itself is fearing not having it." (Roper 2020). Such rhetoric encourages public support for and legitimization of high-politics measures taken by leaders to address the anxiety-inducing AI arms race. Consequently, this focus on competition distracts from the real threat to humanity: the unregulated and unethical use of AI as a technological superpower.

video transcript

connection with misinterpreting China continue the Booth thoughts

In a complex, globalized society, it is crucial to emphasize how the rise of AI nationalism—driven by the securitization of the AI Arms Race—can foster an "us vs. them" mentality. This dynamic leads to human security issues, where individuals may face discrimination due to their depiction as "the other." Kelly Wilson, in her lecture, underscores that extremism thrives in such binary thinking, stating, "Extremism involves a categorical us vs. them thinking, creating a dense, closed-off environment." (Wilson 2020).

Samuel Huntington’s theory in The Clash of Civilizations states that civilizations are "the highest cultural grouping of people... defined both by common objective elements, such as language, history, religion, customs, institutions, and by the subjective self-identification of people" (Huntington 1993, 24). He argues that these civilizations are destined to clash due to their embedded cultural differences. This perspective influences the construction of Artificial Intelligence advancements as existential threats, as the technologies reflect the ideologies of their originating civilizations. For example, China’s development of AI for surveillance embodies its ideological priorities, reinforcing perceptions of AI as a civilizational clash. This threat perception not only impacts the nation-state of China but also extends to Chinese immigrants and their descendants in the West, contributing to a human security crisis marked by heightened racial discrimination. The U.S. has amplified these tensions through media and political discourse, positioning AI as the latest symbol of a "civilizational clash" and intensifying what Huntington describes as the fear of the rise of the East. Consequently, these narratives exacerbate social fractures, increasing the risk of violence and extremism against Asian communities. These risks are not confined to China or its borders. They extend to Chinese descendants and immigrant communities within Western national borders, echoing historical patterns of securitization, such as the discrimination against Japanese-Americans during World War II and the paranoia of the Red Scare during the Cold War. This demonstrates how the AI arms race transcends state-level conflict, deeply impacting individual lives. and social cohesion.

Ethical and cultural biases are often amplified through the use of AI technologies. Machine learning relies on algorithms that are trained on existing data, making them highly susceptible to biases (Rusanen and Nurminen, n.d.). These biases, rooted in societal divides, can be reinforced and perpetuated, further fracturing societies and deepening the divisions between civilizations. The biases of programmers, influenced by securitized narratives, are embedded in these systems, entrenching the notion of clashing civilizations. This dynamic also undermines globalization, as AI technologies increasingly reflect Western ideologies, rendering them less applicable to diverse cultural contexts. This phenomenon mirrors the securitization of migration. As highlighted in both articles by Yayboke & McAuliffe (Yayboke and McAuliffe 2023), and Greenhill (Greenhill 2022), migrants have been securitized, leading them to become weapons and coercion methods to threaten other countries, driven by a fear of the "unknown stranger." This narrative has led to human security crises, with millions displaced by conflict, instability, and climate factors, predicting an outcome that could arise by the human risk factor of the AI arms race. By securitizing AI technologies, societies not only exacerbate harmful biases but also risk creating a more fragmented and conflict-prone world.

As the AI Arms Race continues to evolve, it is fundamental to understand that the new battlefield of cyberspace is emerging. Nonetheless, a critical element of strategy and geography, will still play a major role in determining the winner and losers of this war. The digital space remains vitally linked to the physical world. Cybertechnologies and AI are reliant on infrastructures and raw material for their existence, creating strong ties between them. Critical infrastructures, such as power grids, undersea cables, and microchip production facilities, and data control points will become the referent object of the securitization of data. Colin Gray, in his writing Perspectives on Strategy has argued that strategy has always been constrained by geography (Gray 2013). Although his writings preceded AI the discussion of the dependency of technology on geography is highly important and adapting to new circumstances. Data is ultimately rooted and sourced in the physical world, as it relies on raw materials and transmission facilitators that are located in the physical dimension. Controlling the geographical points in which data is collected, processed, and transmitted will be crucial in the AI arms race, locating conflict not only in cyberspace, but also in these key geographical locations that states will compete to control. The need to defend critical infrastructures while also compromising the one’s held by adversaries will only underscore the importance of geography in strategy and securitized issues. There can be an argument that strategic maps will change and adapt to these new referent objects given by this securitized issue. As traditionalists have rejected the notion of the state as the sole referent object, this change could be manifested in the interpretation of geographical maps, not having the nation states as the sole focus, but also be defined by the flow of information, the location of critical infrastructures, and by the strategic “choke points” of the digital world.

video transcript

connection with misinterpreting China continue the Booth thoughts