This Former DeepMind Exec Thinks the AI ​​Arms Race Could End in Disaster

Reports of the intelligence arms race is everywhere—even in this book. But what if this frame is too dangerous?

That’s the arrogance of Verity Harding. Between 2016 and 2020, Harding spent his days informing politicians around the world, from Barack Obama to Emmanuel Macron, about the progress. AI. As a global policy topic on Google DeepMindHarding was responsible for drawing moral dilemmas and potential dangers. Back then, he told WIRED in a recent interview, AI research “was based on international consensus.” But somewhere along the way, the industry began to be shaped by conflicts – between human labs like Anthropic and OpenAI and between two global powers: the US and China. The AI ​​arms race became the metaphor du jour.

In a new article by Harding, Renewing the AI ​​Arms Racehe and others from international politics and academia, including historian Lawrence Freedman and Japanese politician Taro Kono, say the language used to describe AI shapes policymaking and the way nations work.

Harding believes that casting AI as a lethal weapon could lead to closing the door on the kind of global cooperation needed to keep the technology safe and its benefits shared equally. For small powers that import technology, agreeing to build weapons means siding with the great powers, perhaps against their will.

Harding sees the Trump administration Nationalist AI rhetoric and its purpose establish export regulations on domestic models as signs of an arms race—and evidence that the worst is beginning to happen.

WIRED caught up with Harding in early June to discuss where the idea of ​​an arms race originated, how the issue is changing geopolitics, and what small nations can do to ensure they have a say in the development of AI.

The following discussion has been edited for accuracy and clarity.

WIRED: Why do you think people are drawn to military metaphors about AI?

VERITY HARDING: I just think it’s an adulterous look. It’s one of those things that makes perfect sense, but if you dig deeper, it really gets in the way of your thinking.

When I was at DeepMind, the project was trying to help political leaders understand technology and what it could do. It was founded with the idea that technology was really interesting, but there were also things that should be touched that would have to be done in a coordinated, international way. What I began to see (over time) was the idea that it was a civil war: the West against China.

What were the forces behind the change?

One was the honest belief that technology was dangerous – or would be in the wrong hands – and that democrats should hold the keys.

The other was an anti-constitutional river, (which) it was beneficial to say to China as a liar: “If you control us, you let China win.”

Can you point to any particular moment as a trigger?

ChatGPT (was launched in November 2022) suddenly made many people listen to AI. But other things happened at the same time.

ChatGPT emerged at the same time as a global epidemic, when people worried that a borderless world would once again be on the border, and the war in Ukraine, where many discussions about AI and geopolitics – but especially weapons – suddenly became real.

It became accepted wisdom that AI was the new arms race. It was recorded during the last arms race in living memory, the Cold War; people talked about it like a nuclear weapon.