Abstract
Discussions about artificial Intelligence (AI) are gaining prominence in the recent revival of “cold war” narratives comparing US-China relations today to the historical rivalry between the US and the Soviet Union. Drawing on a review of existing academic and other relevant literature, this paper examines how the “AI cold war” narrative is justified, and numerous ways that it can be challenged. It argues that the framing is largely driven by the securitisation of AI: the discursive process in which state actors and policy pundits view AI innovations’ dual-use capabilities as key to national security and ideological competition in the rivalry between a hegemon and a rising power.
However, critics posit that the narrative exaggerates China’s AI capabilities, promotes commercial interests of tech firms and defence contractors, creates self-reinforced militarisation, and undermines the potential for international research and regulatory cooperation. While the outcome for the cold war/arms race narrative – China’s AI capability vis-à-vis the US currently or in future – is much debatable, the framing prompts scholarly interests about the implications for national AI policy and firm innovation strategies, third-party state strategies in AI development, and AI governance. This paper concludes by inviting scholars to rethink the affective power of narratives and contribute research and narrative analysis that allow for the articulation of perspectives from third countries.
However, critics posit that the narrative exaggerates China’s AI capabilities, promotes commercial interests of tech firms and defence contractors, creates self-reinforced militarisation, and undermines the potential for international research and regulatory cooperation. While the outcome for the cold war/arms race narrative – China’s AI capability vis-à-vis the US currently or in future – is much debatable, the framing prompts scholarly interests about the implications for national AI policy and firm innovation strategies, third-party state strategies in AI development, and AI governance. This paper concludes by inviting scholars to rethink the affective power of narratives and contribute research and narrative analysis that allow for the articulation of perspectives from third countries.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Place of Publication | Manchester |
Publication status | Published - 2024 |
Publication series
Name | GDI Digital Development Working Papers |
---|---|
Publisher | Centre for Digital Development |
No. | 110 |
Research Beacons, Institutes and Platforms
- Global Development Institute