If a government of free people "has to have a monopoly on violence to protect the Country," then why did the free people of ours insist on the 2nd Amendment? Must free people also grant their government, in the name of "protecting the Country," broad, partisan, highly-classified discretion in the adoption of nascent technologies to fortify that monopoly, even over the warnings and objections of the inventors of those technologies? Seems like a Faustian bargain.
This person seems to forget that bureaucracy is a product of democracy. Its goal is to protect individuals from rash decisions.
Sure, it would be easier to discard all the rules when they annoy you. But we live in an adult world. Your actions have consequences, especially at this level. In bureaucracy, just like at the international level, rules and laws exist for a reason. They are not mere friction to be gamed or ignored.
So instead of spending your energy on working around them (or worse, breaking them) try to understand why they exist. Engage with the underlying principles and constraints, rather than treating them as obstacles to be bulldozed.
If AI vendors refuse to let their technology be used for war, then the question should be: Why do they refuse? What values, norms, or legal expectations are they signaling? That is the real conversation to have—not how to bypass contracts or pressure companies into behaving against their better judgment.
TL;DR: We're going to keep investing in lots of companies; better keep up.
Dear Under-Secretary Michael,
If a government of free people "has to have a monopoly on violence to protect the Country," then why did the free people of ours insist on the 2nd Amendment? Must free people also grant their government, in the name of "protecting the Country," broad, partisan, highly-classified discretion in the adoption of nascent technologies to fortify that monopoly, even over the warnings and objections of the inventors of those technologies? Seems like a Faustian bargain.
This person seems to forget that bureaucracy is a product of democracy. Its goal is to protect individuals from rash decisions.
Sure, it would be easier to discard all the rules when they annoy you. But we live in an adult world. Your actions have consequences, especially at this level. In bureaucracy, just like at the international level, rules and laws exist for a reason. They are not mere friction to be gamed or ignored.
So instead of spending your energy on working around them (or worse, breaking them) try to understand why they exist. Engage with the underlying principles and constraints, rather than treating them as obstacles to be bulldozed.
If AI vendors refuse to let their technology be used for war, then the question should be: Why do they refuse? What values, norms, or legal expectations are they signaling? That is the real conversation to have—not how to bypass contracts or pressure companies into behaving against their better judgment.