pull down to refresh

Rundown from the PDF in the buried article the WEF shared.

It defines AI sovereignty as an economy’s ability to shape, deploy, and govern AI in line with its values while retaining strategic and operational control and resilience, using a mix of local investment and trusted collaboration. It explicitly recommends “strategic interdependence” over rigid self sufficiency.

Their definition of AI sovereignty includes reducing dependence on foreign entities and protecting national interests. Basically treating AI infrastructure as a strategic public asset similar to highways or utilities.

AI investment has been concentrated in infrastructure plus applications. Estimates more than $600B went into AI dedicated infrastructure from 2010 to 2024, and it projects annual AI application investment could reach about $1.5T by 2030.

Compute is the new central bank, and hyperscalers are the new gatekeepers? Whoever controls chips + power + network gets to set the price of imagination?

That should make everyone think about dependency risk the same way we think about custodians.

US & China capture roughly 65% of aggregate global investment across the AI value chain, highlighting how hard “full stack” competition is for most economies.

hmm “digital embassies” are presented as a governance model for cross border data that sits between full data localization and fully outsourced cloud, not sure I would call that that

I am always impressed how the WEF will reframe words in realtime, never gets old, always fascinating to see. Should mention this spost got me spurred from here #1416655

202 sats \ 7 replies \ @optimism 4h

When the WEF's paper says sovereign, they mean sovereign states

When Satya says sovereign, he means sovereign corporations

I wonder though: who is at the WEF, defending that the ultimate sovereign is that of the individual?

reply
100 sats \ 5 replies \ @Car OP 4h

from my understanding the reframing they use are directed toward governing AI on government terms, aligned with national values while also not limiting strategic control & resilience

reply
102 sats \ 4 replies \ @optimism 4h

Yes, exactly. So all the different governments will govern the AIs of their subjects, which consolidates power into the hands of some 160 groups of overlords at the expense of the sovereignty of some 7 billion people that happen to not be overlords.

If I would actually consider myself a subject of a government, I would find this sort of alarming.

reply
100 sats \ 3 replies \ @Car OP 4h
If I would actually consider myself a subject of a government, I would find this sort of alarming.

If you are a smaller country absolutely, because they are advising state centricity by design

very likely if this plays out in the scenario they are advising

🔮 I could see a world where AI dependency "technologically" is spigot that is similar to what we have now with the FED, upstream plumbing becomes downstream leverage

reply
21 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 3h

While I read your crystal ball I was shouting "End the FED". Now you know how I really feel 😭😂

reply
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @Car OP 3h

I have some more thoughts on this, will likely bring up on snl, also would like to get k00b take on this.

reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 3h

Looking forward.

reply

That’s an easy one!

None

reply
It defines AI sovereignty as an economy’s ability to shape, deploy, and govern AI in line with its values while retaining strategic and operational control and resilience, using a mix of local investment and trusted collaboration. It explicitly recommends “strategic interdependence” over rigid self sufficiency.

Buzzwords and meaningless. I define this good sounding thing as the ability to do something good while retaining other good things and not sacrificing my good sounding values. My recommendation is to adopt a strategy that has a good sounding name over a bad sounding name.

reply

Wow, I read as much as I could:

  1. Shockingly boring with no substance
  2. FULL of meaningless buzz-words
  3. AI could write a better "whitepaper" than this drivel
reply