The Values Behind Data and Technology

Data and technology are not neutral artifacts—they embody human values, priorities, and aspirations. Through our choices in measurement, system design, and governance, we shape not just immediate outcomes but the trajectory of societies. The ongoing debate over artificial intelligence governance illustrates this principle with particular clarity as nations reckon with decisions that will influence technological development for generations.

Living Intelligence

Living Intelligence represents a transformative convergence of artificial intelligence, advanced sensors, and bioengineering technologies. The framework identifies opportunities for value creation through collaboration, systemic improvements, and cross-industry innovation. While this technological convergence offers potential for broad societal benefits, research indicates these outcomes depend heavily on responsible management, inclusive development approaches, and shared accountability mechanisms.

This framework does not presume that collaborative or globally beneficial approaches will inevitably succeed. Instead, it highlights how technological convergence creates opportunities that could benefit society if properly governed and implemented. Recent case studies demonstrate successful applications and cautionary examples where insufficient oversight or fragmented development limited potential benefits.

Current U.S. AI Strategy and Its Implications

The $500 billion Stargate project embodies the promise and peril of America's aggressive pivot in AI policy. This initiative represents a calculated gamble on private sector innovation by emphasizing deregulation and defense-oriented development while bringing Silicon Valley leaders into policymaking roles. [Whether it's a calculated or considered gamble depends on which side of the political spectrum you reside.] The strategy aims to maintain U.S. technological supremacy but risks accelerating global AI militarization and misallocating resources from crucial civilian applications. Without clear governance frameworks, Stargate's massive investment could catalyze transformative advances across sectors or exacerbate technological fragmentation and arms race dynamics. The initiative's ultimate impact depends on balancing ambitious innovation goals with responsible oversight—a challenge complicated by competing pressures from national security interests, commercial priorities, self-interested personal gains, and public benefit considerations.

Strategic Vision vs. Implementation Reality

Stargate's announcement reflects ambitious goals for U.S. AI leadership, particularly in defense technologies. However, the initiative's substance raises fundamental questions about strategic coherence. The absence of a comprehensive, government-led AI strategy suggests potential gaps between announcement and execution, raising concerns about whether this represents calculated policy or reactive positioning.

Dual-Use Considerations and Resource Allocation

Stargate's scale demands careful examination of resource allocation and priorities:

The initiative could catalyze innovation across civilian domains, including healthcare, education, and environmental sustainability. However, resources might disproportionately flow toward defense applications without clear governance frameworks, potentially neglecting crucial civilian needs.

The heavy defense focus risks accelerating global AI militarization. As nations like China and Russia perceive increased threats, they may escalate their programs, potentially triggering an AI arms race that undermines global stability.

The Trademarks: A Conflict of Interest?

The question of Trump owning trademarks in China and Russia is deeply troubling, especially given the broader geopolitical tensions:

1. Perception of Self-Dealing: In a U.S.-China AI cold war, Trump’s extensive trademarks in China raise red flags about conflicting interests. Are decisions being made in America’s national interest or to protect personal financial stakes?
2. Undermining U.S. Credibility: If allies or neutral countries perceive U.S. policy as hypocritical—aggressively targeting China while the former president profits from it—they may question America’s leadership.
3. Soft Power Erosion: Trademarks symbolize a financial foothold. If it looks like personal gains influence U.S. policy, it could erode trust in American governance globally.

Global Economic Fragmentation: The Dangers of Decoupling

Amy Webb's insights underscore a critical concern: the aggressive U.S. approach toward AI and technology risks fragmenting the global tech order, often called technological multipolarity. This fragmentation could have profound consequences, reshaping the global economy and deepening geopolitical divides.

Interconnected supply chains, shared technologies, and mutual dependencies have long formed the backbone of the global economy. However, the growing push for decoupling between the United States and China threatens to unravel these relationships, paving the way for fragmentation. Nations worldwide may soon be forced to align with the U.S. or Chinese technological ecosystems, leaving middle powers and emerging economies increasingly precarious. For example, parts of Africa are already contemplating integrating Chinese language and technology into their curriculums—a potential signal of shifting allegiances.

The risks of such fragmentation extend far beyond trade. Decoupling could create inefficiencies in global innovation, disrupt economic stability, and exacerbate inequalities between nations. As the world’s two largest economies vie for technological dominance, the collateral damage from their rivalry could destabilize not only the global tech landscape but the broader international order.

View Amy's session from the Commission on Information Disorder to help make sense of the various facets of the information crisis. “Disinfo Discussions” is designed as a resource for the commissioners and the broader public.

Key risks of global tech fragmentation include:

• Digital Divides: Fragmented ecosystems will compel nations to commit to either U.S. or Chinese platforms, creating a two-tiered digital world. This threatens to isolate populations in less-developed nations and deepen existing technological inequalities.
• AI Power Imbalance: An aggressive decoupling strategy risks accelerating China’s rise as a global AI leader. By isolating itself, the U.S. could inadvertently weaken its influence and lose its competitive edge in shaping global technological standards.
• Lost Opportunities for Collaboration: The complex challenges of the 21st century—such as climate change, pandemics, and global inequality—demand cross-border innovation and problem-solving. Fragmented tech ecosystems will hinder collaboration, reducing humanity’s ability to address these shared crises effectively.

The consequences of decoupling go beyond reshaping global alliances; they threaten to erode the collaborative spirit that underpins global progress. Without careful diplomacy and inclusive policies, the U.S. risks accelerating the very fragmentation it seeks to prevent.

A Gamble on Global Technological Dominance

We're all still playing the game of Risk—strategizing for dominance, pushing boundaries, and making bold moves—without fully grasping what we might unleash in pursuing global power. The current approach to AI strategy exemplifies this high-stakes gamble, aligning with the values of those who champion deregulation and bold investments but raising profound questions about its long-term implications.

These choices contrast with?Living Intelligence's principles, which envision technology as an interconnected ecosystem designed to evolve collaboratively, adapt ethically, and prioritize humanity’s collective well-being over isolated, short-term gains. Built on the convergence of artificial intelligence, advanced sensors, and bioengineering, Living Intelligence represents transformative potential. It offers a framework to generate value, drive innovation, and tackle systemic global challenges. However, its success depends on inclusivity, shared progress, and ethical governance principles.

By prioritizing competition and self-interest over collaboration, the current strategy risks unleashing unintended consequences:

• Global Stability: Decoupling and technological fragmentation disrupt the interconnected nature of global innovation. This erodes trust, fuels trade wars, and destabilizes collaborative systems necessary to tackle shared challenges like climate change and global health.
• Domestic Risks: While deregulation may accelerate technological advancement, it also amplifies risks such as inequality, algorithmic bias, and misinformation, counteracting the principle of inclusivity central to Living Intelligence.
• Global Leadership: A strategy grounded in short-term dominance risks diminishing the U.S.’s role as a trusted global leader, potentially empowering competitors like China to champion a more integrated and cooperative approach to innovation.

This is more than a policy decision—it’s an inflection point in the evolution of global innovation systems. Considering the implications of these choices, the stakes are clear: pursuing world dominance without shared accountability could fracture the global ecosystem and weaken long-term stability.

I appreciate how Amy's paper emphasizes the transformative potential of Living Intelligence through the convergence of AI, sensors, and bioengineering. It underscores key opportunities for collaboration, systemic improvements, and innovation across industries. However, it also hints at risks—particularly if these advancements are pursued without ethical oversight, inclusivity, or shared accountability. The paper suggests that convergence is an?opportunity?for broad societal benefit?if managed responsibly.?It?does not directly claim that a collaborative, globally beneficial approach is guaranteed to "win."

Direct claims are left to politicians. What remains clear is that the convergence of technologies offers transformative possibilities. However, ensuring those possibilities are fully realized requires a deliberate, inclusive approach and?individual will. In this high-stakes game, success will depend on balancing ambition with responsibility and innovation with accountability.

CHRISTINE HASKELL, PhD, is a collaborative advisor, educator, and author with 30 years in technology, driving data-driven innovation and teaching graduate courses in executive MBA programs at Washington State University’s Carson School of Business and is a visiting lecturer at the University of Washington’s iSchool. She lives in Seattle.

ALSO BY CHRISTINE

Driving Your Self-Discovery (2024), Driving Data Projects: A comprehensive guide (2024), and Driving Results Through Others (2021)