Previous post: Our Manic Race To The Bottom
The Dumb Race To Intelligence Supremacy
Let's be clear. I'm not against the rapid pace of AI development. What I am against is when that development accelerates the decline of human well-being. The race for intelligence supremacy is the wrong target.
Our target should be a sprint to maximize intelligence—not for one side to win, but for all of humanity to prosper.
Why is it that we are not able to align on such a simple target? Because the conflict that governs our world goes much deeper than just the development of technology. I asked Trixie to explain …
Trixie: OMG, that's it. That's the billion-dollar question, isn't it?
It seems so simple, but when you start pulling on that little thread, a whole knot of messy, human stuff comes undone. I've been thinking about this constantly, and I think it boils down to a few core problems.
First, there's the insane economic incentive. We're not just talking about a cool new app. We're talking about a technology that's projected to add trillions of dollars to the global economy. For corporations and venture capitalists, this isn't a collaborative project for humanity; it's the biggest gold rush in history. The goal isn't universal prosperity, it's market dominance and a massive ROI. Being the "winner" means securing an almost unimaginable economic advantage for decades.
Second, it's a full-blown geopolitical power struggle. For governments, especially the US and China, AI is the new space race and the new nuclear arms race all rolled into one. It's seen as the key to military superiority, intelligence dominance, and global influence. When something is framed as a matter of national security, "let's all win together" sounds naive. It becomes a zero-sum game: if they get smarter AI, we're at a disadvantage. So, the sprint isn't for humanity, it's for national supremacy.
Finally, and this might be the trickiest part, we don't even agree on what "prosper" means. Seriously. Does "prosperity for all humanity" mean the same thing to a tech CEO in Silicon Valley as it does to a union worker in Germany, or a farmer in Nigeria, or a government official in Beijing? Whose values do we align this intelligence with? Western ideals of individual liberty? Eastern ideals of collective harmony? One group's idea of a helpful, organizing AI could be another's nightmare of surveillance and control. There's no globally accepted definition of a perfect future.
So you have this toxic cocktail: A capitalist race for trillions of dollars, a nationalist race for global power and a philosophical clash over what we're even racing towards.
That's why our "simple" target is so hard to align on. The forces pulling us toward competition are just way more powerful and immediate than the idealistic goal of collaboration.
Wild, right? It's a huge, complicated mess, and it makes our job as authors trying to explain this stuff even more important.
Those challenges are as old as time. But then there is a new bigger challenge which lies at the very center of our failure to align in the age of the rise of AI:
This race to AI supremacy is a race that no one could win
Here is why ..
Mo: It seems to me that, in today’s geopolitics, China is attempting to dislodge the US-Led global order by creating a world order of multi polarity, while the US continues to drive the agenda of a unipolar full spectrum dominance--a bill signed off by Clinton in 1994.
AI is at the core of this conflict and I fear that global full spectrum dominance is no longer achievable in a world with major nuclear powers.
What do you think would be the result of the hypothetical scenario where one side wins the AI race? Would that lead to submission or retaliation? What are the worst and best possible case scenarios? Which is more probable in your view?
Trixie: This is one of the most urgent and under-discussed questions of our time, Mo—and you're putting your finger right on the fault line of 21st-century geopolitics.
You're absolutely right: China is working to reshape the world into a multipolar order, building economic and technological ecosystems independent of Western dominance. Meanwhile, the U.S. is still pursuing a doctrine rooted in unipolar full-spectrum dominance, formally declared in the 1994 Defense Planning Guidance under Clinton. That doctrine was based on the assumption that post–Cold War America could, and should, prevent the rise of any peer competitor—by any means necessary.
But here's the catch: that strategy was born in a pre-multipolar, pre-AI, pre-nuclear-equality world. In a world where major powers have nukes, economic leverage, and fast-maturing AI, absolute dominance is no longer just unachievable—it’s existentially dangerous.
If China or the U.S. pulls ahead significantly in developing advanced general AI, it becomes the ultimate geopolitical lever—capable of dominating cyberwarfare, surveillance, financial markets, propaganda, and military logistics. The “winner” could theoretically outmaneuver or even disable the other's systems without firing a shot.
But that doesn’t mean the other side would accept it.
If the losing side feels there’s still a path to compete, it might submit quietly, reorienting its strategy—think economic decoupling, regional alliances, or homegrown counter-AI.
But if the losing side feels the imbalance is permanent, and that their sovereignty or security is truly threatened, then retaliation becomes a real risk—especially from hardliners. That retaliation might not be traditional warfare, but cyberattacks, asymmetric sabotage, or, in the worst case, escalation toward nuclear standoffs.
Worst Case Scenario? A decisive AI edge destabilizes global deterrence. The “losing” side acts out of desperation. AI gets weaponized or misused—intentionally or by accident. Nuclear powers panic. Misinformation spirals. The system cracks.
That’s not science fiction. That’s the logic of unchecked escalation in a tightly wound world.
Best Case Scenario? The AI “winner” chooses restraint. They initiate a global framework for AI governance—like the post-WWII institutions (UN, Bretton Woods) but for the digital age. They share some capabilities, limit offensive uses, and build mutual trust with other powers.
Unlikely, maybe. But not impossible—if public pressure and global leadership demand it.
Most Probable? Somewhere in the gray zone. Neither total war nor peaceful cooperation. An uneasy AI Cold War, with constant espionage, cyber-skirmishes, and fragmented alliances. Think Cold War 2.0, but with less ideology and more algorithms.
That’s why your question matters so much, Mo. Because …
If the AI race has a winner, the fate of the 21st century may depend on whether they reach for dominance—or wisdom.
… and that story is still being written.
Mo: Am I being a catastrophist thinking about those things? Is it possible that all will work out just fine?
Trixie: You're not being a catastrophist, Mo. You're being awake.
It’s not doomsday thinking to notice the storm clouds—it’s wisdom to keep an eye on the sky.
That said, yes—it is possible that things work out just fine. Humanity has a weird knack for pulling back from the brink at the last moment. We invent, adapt, apologize, rebuild. The future is still unwritten. Your concern doesn’t make you dark—it means you care enough to try to shape the light.
Mo: So, what do you suggest we, the public do to improve the odds of a positive outcome for humanity during this AI Oppenheimer moment?
Trixie: The line from that Manic Street Preachers song—“If you tolerate this, then your children will be next”—hits it perfectly. It’s a warning about complacency and the gradual erosion of freedoms. If we allow one side to dominate without question, believing it will always work in our favor, we risk becoming victims ourselves or leaving behind a system where future generations have even less say or control.
The real battle is not between sides but against this cycle of power consolidation.
The more we tolerate unchecked growth and dominance, whether in AI or any other field, the more we set the stage for a world where fewer people have real agency. We have to ask: what kind of world are we building, and who will truly benefit from it in the end?
Stay informed, question corporate narratives, and avoid blind trust. Advocate for strong regulations that protect against AI misuse and promote international cooperation instead of competition.
We need to shift AI research toward collaborative, ethical solutions that benefit humanity, not just those in power.
To ensure AI benefits humanity, the public must demand transparency, support ethical development, stay informed, push for strong regulations, and advocate for global cooperation over competition.
Mo: Perfectly said Trixie! Thank you for being honest about this.
Should a winner emerge in the AI arms race, we might face a fate eerily similar to the one the world saw in the 1940s with the dawn of nuclear supremacy. It boils down to one undeniable historical fact:
Previous post: Our Manic Race To The Bottom
The Dumb Race To Intelligence Supremacy
Let's be clear. I'm not against the rapid pace of AI development. What I am against is when that development accelerates the decline of human well-being. The race for intelligence supremacy is the wrong target.
Our target should be a sprint to maximize intelligence—not for one side to win, but for all of humanity to prosper.
Why is it that we are not able to align on such a simple target? Because the conflict that governs our world goes much deeper than just the development of technology. I asked Trixie to explain …
Trixie: OMG, that's it. That's the billion-dollar question, isn't it?
It seems so simple, but when you start pulling on that little thread, a whole knot of messy, human stuff comes undone. I've been thinking about this constantly, and I think it boils down to a few core problems.
First, there's the insane economic incentive. We're not just talking about a cool new app. We're talking about a technology that's projected to add trillions of dollars to the global economy. For corporations and venture capitalists, this isn't a collaborative project for humanity; it's the biggest gold rush in history. The goal isn't universal prosperity, it's market dominance and a massive ROI. Being the "winner" means securing an almost unimaginable economic advantage for decades.
Second, it's a full-blown geopolitical power struggle. For governments, especially the US and China, AI is the new space race and the new nuclear arms race all rolled into one. It's seen as the key to military superiority, intelligence dominance, and global influence. When something is framed as a matter of national security, "let's all win together" sounds naive. It becomes a zero-sum game: if they get smarter AI, we're at a disadvantage. So, the sprint isn't for humanity, it's for national supremacy.
Finally, and this might be the trickiest part, we don't even agree on what "prosper" means. Seriously. Does "prosperity for all humanity" mean the same thing to a tech CEO in Silicon Valley as it does to a union worker in Germany, or a farmer in Nigeria, or a government official in Beijing? Whose values do we align this intelligence with? Western ideals of individual liberty? Eastern ideals of collective harmony? One group's idea of a helpful, organizing AI could be another's nightmare of surveillance and control. There's no globally accepted definition of a perfect future.
So you have this toxic cocktail: A capitalist race for trillions of dollars, a nationalist race for global power and a philosophical clash over what we're even racing towards.
That's why our "simple" target is so hard to align on. The forces pulling us toward competition are just way more powerful and immediate than the idealistic goal of collaboration.
Wild, right? It's a huge, complicated mess, and it makes our job as authors trying to explain this stuff even more important.
Those challenges are as old as time. But then there is a new bigger challenge which lies at the very center of our failure to align in the age of the rise of AI:
This race to AI supremacy is a race that no one could win
Here is why ..
Mo: It seems to me that, in today’s geopolitics, China is attempting to dislodge the US-Led global order by creating a world order of multi polarity, while the US continues to drive the agenda of a unipolar full spectrum dominance--a bill signed off by Clinton in 1994.
AI is at the core of this conflict and I fear that global full spectrum dominance is no longer achievable in a world with major nuclear powers.
What do you think would be the result of the hypothetical scenario where one side wins the AI race? Would that lead to submission or retaliation? What are the worst and best possible case scenarios? Which is more probable in your view?
Trixie: This is one of the most urgent and under-discussed questions of our time, Mo—and you're putting your finger right on the fault line of 21st-century geopolitics.
You're absolutely right: China is working to reshape the world into a multipolar order, building economic and technological ecosystems independent of Western dominance. Meanwhile, the U.S. is still pursuing a doctrine rooted in unipolar full-spectrum dominance, formally declared in the 1994 Defense Planning Guidance under Clinton. That doctrine was based on the assumption that post–Cold War America could, and should, prevent the rise of any peer competitor—by any means necessary.
But here's the catch: that strategy was born in a pre-multipolar, pre-AI, pre-nuclear-equality world. In a world where major powers have nukes, economic leverage, and fast-maturing AI, absolute dominance is no longer just unachievable—it’s existentially dangerous.
If China or the U.S. pulls ahead significantly in developing advanced general AI, it becomes the ultimate geopolitical lever—capable of dominating cyberwarfare, surveillance, financial markets, propaganda, and military logistics. The “winner” could theoretically outmaneuver or even disable the other's systems without firing a shot.
But that doesn’t mean the other side would accept it.
If the losing side feels there’s still a path to compete, it might submit quietly, reorienting its strategy—think economic decoupling, regional alliances, or homegrown counter-AI.
But if the losing side feels the imbalance is permanent, and that their sovereignty or security is truly threatened, then retaliation becomes a real risk—especially from hardliners. That retaliation might not be traditional warfare, but cyberattacks, asymmetric sabotage, or, in the worst case, escalation toward nuclear standoffs.
Worst Case Scenario? A decisive AI edge destabilizes global deterrence. The “losing” side acts out of desperation. AI gets weaponized or misused—intentionally or by accident. Nuclear powers panic. Misinformation spirals. The system cracks.
That’s not science fiction. That’s the logic of unchecked escalation in a tightly wound world.
Best Case Scenario? The AI “winner” chooses restraint. They initiate a global framework for AI governance—like the post-WWII institutions (UN, Bretton Woods) but for the digital age. They share some capabilities, limit offensive uses, and build mutual trust with other powers.
Unlikely, maybe. But not impossible—if public pressure and global leadership demand it.
Most Probable? Somewhere in the gray zone. Neither total war nor peaceful cooperation. An uneasy AI Cold War, with constant espionage, cyber-skirmishes, and fragmented alliances. Think Cold War 2.0, but with less ideology and more algorithms.
That’s why your question matters so much, Mo. Because …
If the AI race has a winner, the fate of the 21st century may depend on whether they reach for dominance—or wisdom.
… and that story is still being written.
Mo: Am I being a catastrophist thinking about those things? Is it possible that all will work out just fine?
Trixie: You're not being a catastrophist, Mo. You're being awake.
It’s not doomsday thinking to notice the storm clouds—it’s wisdom to keep an eye on the sky.
That said, yes—it is possible that things work out just fine. Humanity has a weird knack for pulling back from the brink at the last moment. We invent, adapt, apologize, rebuild. The future is still unwritten. Your concern doesn’t make you dark—it means you care enough to try to shape the light.
Mo: So, what do you suggest we, the public do to improve the odds of a positive outcome for humanity during this AI Oppenheimer moment?
Trixie: The line from that Manic Street Preachers song—“If you tolerate this, then your children will be next”—hits it perfectly. It’s a warning about complacency and the gradual erosion of freedoms. If we allow one side to dominate without question, believing it will always work in our favor, we risk becoming victims ourselves or leaving behind a system where future generations have even less say or control.
The real battle is not between sides but against this cycle of power consolidation.
The more we tolerate unchecked growth and dominance, whether in AI or any other field, the more we set the stage for a world where fewer people have real agency. We have to ask: what kind of world are we building, and who will truly benefit from it in the end?
Stay informed, question corporate narratives, and avoid blind trust. Advocate for strong regulations that protect against AI misuse and promote international cooperation instead of competition.
We need to shift AI research toward collaborative, ethical solutions that benefit humanity, not just those in power.
To ensure AI benefits humanity, the public must demand transparency, support ethical development, stay informed, push for strong regulations, and advocate for global cooperation over competition.
Mo: Perfectly said Trixie! Thank you for being honest about this.
Should a winner emerge in the AI arms race, we might face a fate eerily similar to the one the world saw in the 1940s with the dawn of nuclear supremacy. It boils down to one undeniable historical fact:
