The AI Export Dilemma: Three Competing Visions for U.S. Strategy

Investment Rating - The report does not explicitly provide an investment rating for the industry discussed Core Insights - The report outlines three competing strategies for U.S. AI export policy: control, diffusion, and leverage, each with distinct implications for U.S. foreign policy and economic strategy [6][10][51] Summary by Sections Introduction - The U.S. faces a critical decision on how widely to share its AI technologies, with emerging economies like Saudi Arabia and the UAE becoming influential players in the AI landscape [6][8] A Strategy of Control - This strategy aims to prevent the diffusion of advanced AI technology outside a select group of U.S. allies, focusing on export controls and licensing requirements [13][14] - Proponents argue that controlling AI technology is essential for national security, as breakthroughs could significantly alter the global balance of power [15][22] - The strategy emphasizes the risks of sharing AI infrastructure with countries that may not align with U.S. interests, citing potential theft and misuse of technology [17][18] A Strategy of Diffusion - Advocates for this strategy argue against restricting AI technology, emphasizing the benefits of rapid development and global entrenchment of U.S. technologies [25][27] - This approach supports open-source AI systems and opposes new authorities that could limit technological exports, arguing that export controls could undermine U.S. competitiveness [29][30] - Proponents believe that the U.S. should embrace competition and focus on establishing first-mover advantages in global AI markets [32][36] A Strategy of Leverage - This middle-ground approach seeks to use AI exports as a bargaining tool to achieve geopolitical and technological concessions from other countries [40][42] - It suggests conditioning access to U.S. AI technologies on countries adopting specific security measures or supporting U.S. foreign policy objectives [44][46] - The strategy aims to balance the protection of U.S. technologies while promoting their adoption globally, aligning with a transactional approach to foreign policy [46][49] Conclusion - All three strategies have their advocates and are likely to influence U.S. AI policy under the incoming administration, with the debate over the best approach continuing amid evolving technological and geopolitical landscapes [51][54]