Washington, Jan 20 (NationPress) US legislators have cautioned that choices regarding the export of advanced artificial intelligence chips may shape the future of military and economic dominance. They discussed whether such technology ought to be regulated similarly to strategic arms rather than treated as mere commercial products.

During a recent House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, bipartisan members voiced that AI chips are now integral to warfare, intelligence, and strategic rivalry, necessitating congressional oversight akin to that applied to arms exports.

Committee chairman Congressman Brian Mast emphasized that sophisticated AI systems have transcended civilian uses. “When an export alters America’s military edge, Congress must intervene,” he stated.

Mast noted that artificial intelligence is already foundational for military command and control, intelligence analysis, surveillance, cyber operations, and nuclear modernization. “Dominance in AI can determine who observes first, decides first, and strikes first,” he asserted.

In his testimony, former US national security adviser Matt Pottinger warned that treating advanced chips like typical commercial goods could lead to repeating past strategic errors.

Responding to inquiries, he compared the situation to the telecommunications industry, where Western firms once held sway, only for Chinese companies to utilize imported technology to surpass global markets.

“We’re witnessing the same troubling narrative unfold,” Pottinger remarked, claiming that the sale of advanced AI chips would bolster hostile military capabilities instead of fostering fair competition.

Pottinger highlighted that China’s policy of “military-civil fusion” blurs the lines between civilian and military applications of advanced computing. “There’s no clear distinction between civilian and military use,” he noted.

Former Biden administration official Jon Finer mentioned that export controls on advanced chips and semiconductor manufacturing equipment have been among the few effective tools to impede adversaries’ advancements, but he cautioned that these measures require ongoing enforcement.

“Export controls aren’t a one-time solution,” Finer stated. “They necessitate unwavering vigilance, continual adjustments, and escalation when necessary.”

Finer also warned against leveraging national security controls in trade negotiations, as such tactics could diminish their credibility. He emphasized that export restrictions are most effective when reinforced by Congress and coordinated with allies.

Economist Oren Cass remarked that access to advanced computational capabilities has become a crucial indicator of national strength. “Advanced AI computation is vital to the AI era, fostering both economic vitality and innovative military capabilities,” he affirmed, referencing the Trump administration’s AI action strategy.

Cass cautioned that diverting scarce chip resources to foreign purchasers could also undermine US industry.

Pottinger noted that private firms acquiring US chips often collaborate closely with foreign military entities. “They are purchasing it to enhance their military capabilities beyond that of the United States,” he emphasized.

Several committee members contended that advanced AI chips should no longer be regarded as ordinary exports. Mast likened congressional oversight of chip sales to the review procedures for fighter jets, missiles, and avionics. “Advanced chips undeniably shift military advantage,” he stated.

As artificial intelligence becomes integral to warfare, intelligence, and economic competitiveness, Congress is increasingly contemplating whether advanced chips should be regulated similarly to arms control rather than commercial trade.