I would expect, moderately confidently, that things will be less bad for AI-slowing advocates than for disarmament advocates, because the connection with actual military capabilities is less direct.
Technically this is true, if you read books about nuclear game theory such as Schelling’s Arms and Influence, it becomes pretty clear that military capabilities absolutely hinge on nuclear weapons. However, the latest AI is vital for both modern military capabilities AND nuclear weapons (e.g. cruise missile piloting and loitering munitions) so while it’s technically “less direct” it’s probably not very much less direct.
The connection between the article you link to and the specific claims you are making and implying is rather indirect, and so is the connection between those claims and the people around here to whom you are obliquely referring.
The article was the latest report on exactly how important the AI industry is for geopolitical purposes; how the money is moving is a more reliable indicator than how frequently and directly senior government officials declare AI to be critical for national security (which has been happening for years before GPT-3).
The article does not mention the AI industry, nor does it make any claim (though doubtless it’s true) that ICs are “important for geopolitical purposes”. (It does say that recent big investments in US semiconductor manufacture “ha[ve] implications for [...] geopolitics”, but that isn’t about chips being important for e.g. military applications, it’s about the US wanting China not to have too much power over an industry that’s important for everything. (The specific examples the article gives are smartphones and VR goggles.)
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not saying that AI isn’t of military importance. Only that the article doesn’t say anything about AI or about the military.
Technically this is true, if you read books about nuclear game theory such as Schelling’s Arms and Influence, it becomes pretty clear that military capabilities absolutely hinge on nuclear weapons. However, the latest AI is vital for both modern military capabilities AND nuclear weapons (e.g. cruise missile piloting and loitering munitions) so while it’s technically “less direct” it’s probably not very much less direct.
The article was the latest report on exactly how important the AI industry is for geopolitical purposes; how the money is moving is a more reliable indicator than how frequently and directly senior government officials declare AI to be critical for national security (which has been happening for years before GPT-3).
The article does not mention the AI industry, nor does it make any claim (though doubtless it’s true) that ICs are “important for geopolitical purposes”. (It does say that recent big investments in US semiconductor manufacture “ha[ve] implications for [...] geopolitics”, but that isn’t about chips being important for e.g. military applications, it’s about the US wanting China not to have too much power over an industry that’s important for everything. (The specific examples the article gives are smartphones and VR goggles.)
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not saying that AI isn’t of military importance. Only that the article doesn’t say anything about AI or about the military.