We are organic and so survive on organics well; we are low power; and myriad other evolved traits that put us in equilibrium with the surrounding Earthly environment.

From a dynamical systems perspective, we operate in a niche. Sure, maybe there are still some tweaks left. But machines approximating that niche sufficiently will just be human in the end.

The real question is why we are adamant about being non-humman, so to speak. Therein lies the tautology that AI will exceed us in non-human areas. Of course it will.

Unfortunately it seems that often Western governments serve narrow interest groups (sometimes overseas) over their own people. In other words, open systems that have been usurped by these interest groups, including the military-industrial complex, to your point.

It is a pity, because values of the Enlightenment can be truly beautiful, and are often in fact embodied by the people themselves - just not their economic and governmental systems.

> [to the article more broadly]

If one presumes certain material wealth is in support of the people, then hopefully fixing the underlying resource allocation system away from interest groups can, as evidenced, lead to these industries being reborn.

But the core issue to fix is the underlying systems I think. How? Well, it's tough, but perhaps some garbage collection on structures that don't actually serve the nation(s).

Do these apply to AI?

Something like IPFS, but that works remains my dream - decentralised, but in the cloud nonetheless.

Which can be a worthwhile cost if the benefits of speed and security are needed. But I think it's certainly a cognitive cost.