> And getting to it first could help the US maintain an edge over China; in a logic reminiscent of a nuclear weapons race, it’s better for “us” to have it than

> And getting to it first could help the US maintain an edge over China; in a logic reminiscent of a nuclear weapons race, it’s better for “us” to have it than “them,” the argument goes. This is interesting to me. The last two big national security "races": nuclear and space were, as far as I know, funded primarily largely by the government (despite the work being carried out by private sector). The "AGI" race is entirely fueled by private sector. Specifically, it's fueled by private sector companies whose profits are, by and large, driven by advertising, an industry that thrives on manipulating customers to buy things, directly and indirectly. This is my biggest problem with it. The tech _can be_ helpful, but the incentives are perverse.