Something I've found myself observing in disparate domains: the only defense we have against applications of AI we don't like, is the application of more AI.

Something I've found myself observing in disparate domains: the only defense we have against applications of AI we don't like, is the application of more AI. This is a natural implication of AI being augmented-intelligence force-multipliers at the moment. When your opponent takes performance enhancing drugs, or wears a mecha suit, the only way to compete with them or defend against them is adoption of similar technology. The Prime Directive in Star Trek was prescient. AI arriving unevenly—and first under the direction and control of hands which have thus far proven disinterested in the common welfare where it interferes with personal benefit—looks like it will be a civilizational exercise indistinguishable from the delivery of disruptive technology from another species. Of particular personal concern is that the synergies where it meets other technological social problems against which we have few or no defenses, specifically, surveillance and its active counterpart, sentiment control. I am less concerned about needing AI tools to validate AI-generated code; and more concerned about the 2024 election cycle being opportunity for an arms race in application of AI to game politics.