Opinion | AI companies must pay attention to national security needs – Technologist

While Russian, Chinese and Iranian drones are easy to destroy using existing Western systems, the costs are prohibitive. This unsustainable ratio is the result of decades of complacency and bureaucratic inefficiency.

The US, western Europe, Taiwan and South Korea collectively are still ahead of mainland China and Russia in most of these areas, but their lead is narrowing. China already dominates world markets for mass-produced dual-use hardware such as drones and robots.

The US and European technology sectors are thus behaving like a circular firing squad, with individual firms attempting to sell as much to China as possible. By trying to gain a lead on its immediate competitors, each firm weakens the long-run position of all the others, and ultimately even its own. If this continues, the foreseeable result is that the US and western Europe will fall behind China – and even behind Russia, Iran or decentralised terrorist groups – both in AI-driven warfare and in commercial AI applications.

Many technologists and managers in Silicon Valley and government organisations are aware of this risk, and are very disturbed by it. But despite some significant initiatives (such as the Defence Innovation Unit within the Pentagon), there has been relatively little change in defence-industry behaviour or government policy.

This situation is particularly absurd, given the obvious opportunity for a hugely advantageous grand bargain: industry acquiescence to government-enforced export controls in return for government-supported collective bargaining with China in technology licensing, market access and other commercial benefits. Notwithstanding a few areas of genuine tension, there is a strikingly high degree of alignment between national-security interests and the long-run collective interests of the Western technology sector.

The logical strategy is for the US government and the European Union to serve as bargaining agents on behalf of Western industry when dealing with China. That means acting in concert with industry, while also retaining the power and independence necessary to establish and enforce stringent controls, which the industry should recognise are in its own long-term interest.

Unfortunately, this is not where things are currently headed. Although policymakers and technologists are waking up to the threat, the underlying technology is now moving dramatically faster than policy debates and legislative processes – not to mention the product cycles of the Pentagon and legacy defence contractors. AI development is progressing so blindingly fast that even the US start-up system is straining to keep up. That means there is no time to lose.