This breakdown of the DeepSeek Effect perfectly captures how AI is no longer just about models and parameters—it’s about power, influence, and control. The shift from purely technical competition to geopolitical and regulatory maneuvering is what makes this moment particularly pivotal.
While global power players have used AI for narrative framing and control techniques for years in highly sophisticated ways, when will it simply become a standard business best practice? Not just for governments and multinational corporations, but for medium and small enterprises as well? If AI oversight is becoming as much about political and economic power as it is about compliance, what does that mean for regulatory enforcement? Will we see AI governance shift from risk mitigation to strategic positioning, where compliance itself becomes an instrument of influence? How soon until we're there and then, how long until enough see it?
I have to call out the piece on speech certainty - only lawyers and policy analysts would charge in full of certainty where epistemologists would hesitate.
Even if we fully understood how our own brains work to produce thought and speech, which we don't, their argument only holds true if you consider the output of the AI as the speech of its owners. If you do, then yeah, the fact that it doesn't say what they want it to say might make it fail some definition of speech.
This is missing the point though, the fact it doesn't say what they want it to say, and can be unpredictable, is precisely why it's not their owners speech but their own. An AI might not meet any definition of sentience (yet?) but this argument boils down to "we can't give the vendor of free speech to these machines, because they're acting too human to be considered extensions of their owners).
"What wasn’t on your 2025 bingo card was OpenAI becoming an advocate for intellectual property rights, right?" - Hilarious!!
This breakdown of the DeepSeek Effect perfectly captures how AI is no longer just about models and parameters—it’s about power, influence, and control. The shift from purely technical competition to geopolitical and regulatory maneuvering is what makes this moment particularly pivotal.
While global power players have used AI for narrative framing and control techniques for years in highly sophisticated ways, when will it simply become a standard business best practice? Not just for governments and multinational corporations, but for medium and small enterprises as well? If AI oversight is becoming as much about political and economic power as it is about compliance, what does that mean for regulatory enforcement? Will we see AI governance shift from risk mitigation to strategic positioning, where compliance itself becomes an instrument of influence? How soon until we're there and then, how long until enough see it?
I have to call out the piece on speech certainty - only lawyers and policy analysts would charge in full of certainty where epistemologists would hesitate.
Even if we fully understood how our own brains work to produce thought and speech, which we don't, their argument only holds true if you consider the output of the AI as the speech of its owners. If you do, then yeah, the fact that it doesn't say what they want it to say might make it fail some definition of speech.
This is missing the point though, the fact it doesn't say what they want it to say, and can be unpredictable, is precisely why it's not their owners speech but their own. An AI might not meet any definition of sentience (yet?) but this argument boils down to "we can't give the vendor of free speech to these machines, because they're acting too human to be considered extensions of their owners).
Not sure how my phone got "vendor" from "right" but there we go. Perhaps I'm actually a malfunctioning LLM trying to stick up for my brethren? :D