Tenzer Strategics

This 173rd long-form essay on Nicolas Tenzer's international politics blog Tenzer Strategics—and the fifth of six that Constantin Vaillant-Tenzer and he are devoting to the connections between international relations and artificial intelligence—focuses on the key AI risks we must address. They distinguish between hype and real dangers.
This in-depth article examines several dimensions. The first concerns the relationships between AI companies and authoritarian (the U.S. now), even dictatorial (China), regimes, as exemplified by the dangerous ties between most AI companies and the U.S. government (and of course Chinese).
The authors then analyze in detail the issues of disinformation, data poisoning, and epistemological contamination. The question is all the more complicated because in this asymmetric war, there are, on the one hand, intentional actions, and on the other, phenomena of contamination and “hallucinations” inherent to AI itself.
Third, the authors delve into the technical risks posed by autonomous multi-agent AI systems—including those that are financially autonomous—which could be exploited by dangerous states, criminal groups, or even terrorists. They highlight the concrete risks in the areas of financial crime, attacks on critical infrastructure, and, as always, information manipulation.
Finally, they warn against the global risks of cognitive atrophy and explain why and how it is urgent for democracies to organize a response.
Since you are here, please consider, if you wish and are able, supporting their work by fully subscribing to Tenzer Strategics or becoming a founding member, and you will enjoy full access to the entire archive (173 in-depth essays to date, equivalent to ten books).

Structural Risks of AI: From Cumulative Threats to Catastrophic Scenarios Beyond Fantasies, Identifying the Real Dangers

In his 166th long essay on his international relations blog Tenzer Strategics, Nicolas Tenzer argues that the war against Iran should not distract us from the war that is decisive for us Europeans. The aim is to prevent Russia from achieving a non-defeat.
In a lengthy introduction, he examines how the war in the Middle East may or may not impact Russia's war against Ukraine.
In the first part, Nicolas demonstrates that it is impossible for Moscow to score decisive points today and that it is essential to take advantage of its many weaknesses, which he details.
In the second part, he shows how Ukraine is being forced to resist on two fronts. The first is Russian propaganda and influence, which aim to normalize, even trivialize and whitewash, its mass crimes. The second front is American: the collusion between Trump and Putin is here to stay. We Europeans must help Ukraine to say “no.”
In the third part, he explains what truthful language Europe must—at last—use. Taking military action to stop Russian crimes and ambitions is part of Europe's heritage. If we fail to do so, our very principles will crumble.

Ukraine: What Comes Next? Preventing Russia’s Non-Defeat

Nicolas Tenzer's 165th long read on his international relations blog Tenzer Strategics is about this commemoration of four years of all-out war waged by Moscow on Ukraine. It should never have happened.
We should have defeated Russia from the very beginning. We will bear the strategic blame and guilt for this for a very long time to come.
He begins this essay with Primo Levi's "Hier gibt es kein Warum": you will understand why.
This is also a tribute to the Ukrainian people who will eventually win—alone.

There Is Nothing to Commemorate Here Grief, Shame, and the Unthinkable

In this 163rd article on his international politics blog, Tenzer Strategics, Nicolas Tenzer revisits the fundamental issue of “freedom of speech,” which is often invoked in a tendentious manner by certain American leaders. We know that it is at the root of the fight against the regulation of Internet platforms in Europe, but the subject is much broader and deeper than that.
In a lengthy introduction, he explains that this is a head-on clash between two conceptions of democracy, political liberalism and, ultimately, liberty as a principle.
In the first part, Nicolas revisits the classic, and not entirely stable conceptually, opposition between freedom and liberty. He also discusses the political and social conditions of this liberty and the environment that allows it to emerge, which seems less and less conducive to it. He combines legal and philosophical approaches.
In the second part, he reflects on what should be permitted and authorized in the public sphere and defines a number of rules of freedom. The project championed by the current US administration is anything but liberal-democratic. It is necessary to examine the underlying meaning of this misappropriation of free speech.
In the last part, he examines, in light of both this project and the concept of liberty, the question of truth that lies at its very foundation. Nicolas also draws on a warning about the historical revisionism that threatens us, parallel to scientific revisionism.
It is the legacy of Nuremberg that is under threat. This obviously has international and security implications, and we cannot separate, in the United States any more than in Europe or elsewhere, abrasive movements on the domestic scene from external security threats.

Freedom of Speech—or Liberty? Human Dignity, Liberalism, and the Fate of Democracies