Senator Blumenthal warned we're losing control of AI. The Trump administration responded that losing doesn't matter as long as we lose before China does. This passes for strategic thinking in 2026.
The "race to AI dominance" framing assumes two things. First, that AI is a finish line you cross and then plant a flag. Second, that the guy warning about loss of control and the guy gunning for dominance are somehow having different conversations. They're not. They both think the thing they don't understand can be controlled if we just try harder.
Blumenthal sits in hearings asking tech CEOs to explain algorithms like a dog watching a card trick. Now he's concerned about oversight. Oversight of what, exactly? The senator couldn't define a neural network if you spotted him the first eight words. But he knows we need rules. Always more rules. Rules written by people who think cryptocurrency is a type of Russian weapon.
The Trump administration counters with the China argument. Beat China. Dominance. Winning. As if AI development is a land war you win by getting there first with the most servers. The actual technology doesn't matter. The risks don't matter. What matters is that someone else might build the uncontrollable thing before we build our uncontrollable thing.
So one side wants oversight they can't define over technology they don't understand. The other side wants to win a race that has no finish line against a competitor who's probably already ahead. Both sides agree on nothing except that you, the retail trader, should definitely buy AI stocks because someone said the word "dominance" in a hearing.
The next AI bill will be written by a bipartisan committee with a combined technological literacy roughly equal to a Walmart self-checkout machine, and it'll pass unanimously because nobody wants to be the senator who voted against beating China at the computer thing.
Photo by Brett Jordan on Unsplash
Leave a Comment