And he doesn't use the term "weapon" casually, as technology is now being deployed in drone air strikes. Then there are cyber-attacks, hostile AI applications, space-based attacks, biological weapons, and so on.

It's a wonderful thing that the world is waking up from its technological slumber. But here's the catch: it's a general principle of world history that new technologies, even the most useful ones, end up being utilized as weapons and war instruments.

The horse, the railroad, the airplane, and, of course, nuclear power were previously examples of this. And it's likely that the same will be true for these new advances. In many regions of the world, drone strikes and cyber warfare have already become a serious force.

They are proven to be quite effective, particularly in the Middle East and nearby regions. It is safe to predict that they will expand to many other parts of the world and become more widely used.

Many people in the United States today regard cyber intrusions as a commercial or bureaucratic issue. However, such weapons have the ability to disrupt critical elements of the economy or neutralize military assets.

Artificial intelligence that is hostile, space strikes, and biological weapons have the potential to aggravate the situation even further. However, within a few decades, at least some of these technologies could become critical strategic assets. The majority of present ideologies are unprepared for the new reality that is about to emerge.

These issues do not appear to have an obvious solution, nor do they present any significant opportunities for political gain. Despite over 2,500 Americans being wounded daily by Covid-19, the US has made no substantial progress in preparing for the next pandemic.

More investment on national defense is required, according to the "hawks" of foreign policy. These philosophies, whether you agree or disagree, do not always address the proper questions.

Procurement cycles can last a decade or longer, but essential technologies are improving every year. Furthermore, given the high prices in the technology sector, the US military is finding it increasingly difficult to attract the top talent.

The majority of European ideologies, particularly in Germany, believe that these issues would never affect their country. A hypothetical battle between Russia and Ukraine, on the other hand, could be a nasty awakening.

China, on the other hand, has an ideology to deal with these issues: supervision ideology. It remains to be seen whether these technologies, which are used on China's citizens as well as those from other countries, will make the country more stable or lead to internal political power struggles.

In any event, the purpose should be to resist against, not to embrace, these despotic philosophies. The United States is the only significant country with equal levels of surveillance, however it is focused on other countries rather than its own citizens.

For the United States, it is more of a clandestine activity that purports to be distinct from the rest of the major American ideologies (which rightly have their imperialist aspects).

Whatever your feelings about Edward Snowden, he is no longer a significant public figure and hasn't sparked much discussion in recent years. Before tackling the issue of the deployment of such technology as weapons, America may simply have to wait for something genuinely horrible to occur.

There are a number of philosophies that attempt to address some of the issues. Various circles, particularly those concerned with the hazards of General Artificial Intelligence (AGI), are concerned that a super-intelligent AI would develop its own mind, imposing its will on humanity or engaging in activities. malicious.

This may be a legitimate problem, but my concerns are broader. If the AGI is so powerful, it's realistic to expect intermediate products to generate a lot of military conflict in relation to human endeavor.

Those who are opposed to innovation have an ideology as well. They believe that all new technological growth should be halted. One could debate the decision's cost-benefit ratio, but suffice it to say that China, Russia, and a slew of other competitors have no such plans, and the US has no real option except to strive to remain ahead of them in this race.

This isn't a very optimistic outlook for the future, but it's the reality. America has crossed its fingers, hoping for the best on what may be the most important subject of our time.