“大交易”：一场迟到的美国AI战略自救

Core Argument - The article discusses Ben Buchanan's "grand bargain" proposal for AI development in the U.S., suggesting a strategic agreement between the tech industry and the government to integrate AI into national defense while ensuring it aligns with democratic values. However, the feasibility of this proposal is questioned due to the contrasting realities of U.S. chip policies and the rapid advancements in AI technology from China [1][5][20]. Group 1: AI Development and Policy Discrepancies - Buchanan's proposal emphasizes the need for a strategic partnership between the tech industry and the government, where the former gains access to energy infrastructure and talent, while the latter integrates AI into national defense [1][20]. - The success of DeepSeek's V3.2 model, which rivals top closed-source models despite U.S. chip export restrictions, challenges the effectiveness of both the "dependency" and "containment" strategies towards China [5][6][20]. - The article highlights a fundamental divide in U.S. AI strategy regarding chip policies towards China, with one faction advocating for strategic dependency and the other for strict containment [2][4][5]. Group 2: Energy Infrastructure Challenges - Buchanan's vision includes a significant increase in energy demand for the AI industry, projecting an additional 50 billion watts by 2028, equivalent to Argentina's total electricity consumption [7][8]. - The U.S. faces a political deadlock in energy policy, hindering the construction of new power plants, which is critical for supporting the growing AI sector [7][8]. - The contrasting ability of China to rapidly mobilize resources for infrastructure development poses a competitive disadvantage for the U.S. [9][10]. Group 3: Talent Acquisition and Immigration Policies - The article notes that 70% of top AI researchers in the U.S. are foreign-born, yet current immigration policies are tightening, which could lead to a significant decline in international student enrollment [10][11]. - There is an inherent conflict between the desire to attract international talent and the increasing national security measures that restrict access to sensitive AI research [11][13]. - The political climate in the U.S. is increasingly hostile towards immigration, complicating efforts to maintain a robust talent pipeline for the AI industry [10][11]. Group 4: Government-Industry Relations - The proposed "grand bargain" faces deep-seated mistrust between the tech industry and the government, with tech companies wary of regulatory overreach and the government skeptical of the industry's commitment to national security [14][15]. - Historical examples of tech companies resisting military collaborations illustrate the challenges in establishing a cooperative relationship [14][15]. - The article argues that achieving consensus on key issues such as AI control and economic benefits distribution is unlikely, complicating the realization of the "grand bargain" [15][19]. Group 5: Long-term Strategic Challenges - The rapid pace of AI development contrasts sharply with the slow-moving U.S. political system, which struggles to implement necessary reforms in a timely manner [16][17]. - The instability of political cycles in the U.S. raises concerns about the sustainability of long-term strategies, as policies can be easily overturned by subsequent administrations [17][20]. - The article concludes that the "grand bargain" is based on overly optimistic assumptions about achieving consensus and cooperation in a fragmented political landscape [20].