Jake Sullivan on Navigating AI Uncertainty and Managing Competition with China

**Nathan Labenz** (0:00)
Hello, and welcome back to The Cognitive Revolution. Today, my guest is Jake Sullivan, former National Security Advisor to President Biden, and currently the inaugural Kissinger Professor of the practice of statecraft and world order at the Harvard Kennedy School. This conversation was an exciting opportunity to unpack American AI policy and broader geopolitical strategy with someone who has shouldered intense decision-making responsibilities at the highest level of the US government, and who answers critical questions including about the nature of the threat that China poses to the United States and the nature of a stable equilibrium that the two countries might achieve in the most clear and concrete terms I've heard anywhere, which I appreciated tremendously. After listening to and reflecting on this conversation, I would say that Jake embodies what I might call the very best of the establishment. While AI was a relatively small part of his overall portfolio for most of the four years he spent as National Security Advisor, he nevertheless took the topic seriously enough to meet with leaders from all of the frontier AI labs and to seek a wide range of expert opinions. Agree or disagree with his conclusions, there's no question that he is deeply informed and that his approach combines rigorous pragmatism with refreshing restraint. While he does take for granted that the United States' global leadership position is good and ought to be upheld, he is not pushing a broader ideology, not angling for regime change, and not making complicated second-order or bank shot arguments. On the contrary, at every turn, he seems to really recognize the profound uncertainties associated with AI technology, and very simply, as the cliche goes, tries to figure out how to maximize the benefits while also minimizing the risks, both from the technology itself and from the possibility that government action could end up making things worse. As National Security Advisor, this meant, on the one hand, assessing the National Security Establishment's readiness with respect to AI and publishing a memorandum that called for greater urgency in adopting AI technology, and on the other hand, it also meant initiating an AI risk dialogue with China. At one point in this conversation, Jake describes himself as boring, for focusing so much on the base case and for thinking so linearly. But I would suggest that this style simply reflects four years spent in one of the least boring positions in the entire world, where his job was, more often than not, to identify the least bad of a set of unappealing options. And in any case, when it comes to international relations, boring is probably, in most cases, a good thing. Managed strategic competition with China, however messy and unsatisfying, may indeed be our best path forward. And if nothing else, it is really good to hear an explicit argument that this strategy will serve us better than either a Cold War style AI arms race or an attempt at a grand bargain.
At the same time, I do think it's important to be mindful of the limitations of this generally sensible approach. While Jake is not at all dismissive of short timelines or existential risks and does take scenarios like AI 2027 seriously, the standard policy toolkits and international relations playbooks don't have much on offer to address the most extreme AI possibilities. And this does create a real gap, exactly in the cases where the quality of executive leadership might matter most. Either because we need leaders to show wisdom and restraint under crisis conditions, which I do think Jake would do well, or to inspire the public solidarity needed to navigate what could be shockingly disruptive transitions.
After we stopped recording, Jake was kind enough to say that he's a fan of the show, which given his schedule and responsibilities, I found both extremely flattering and honestly a bit hard to believe. But still, I took the opportunity to ask him how I could make the feed more valuable. His answer is something that the entire AI safety community should hear. Go deep and get as concrete as possible on the specific details of the downside scenarios that you are most worried about, so that the people in power can have the clearest possible threat models and also the most concrete possible plans to address them. I know that many in the AI safety community are trying to do exactly this right now, but it seems to me that we can't have too much of that kind of work, and I definitely plan to feature more of it on the podcast going forward. For my part, if I could be so bold as to offer Jake a suggestion in return, and it does seem quite realistic to me that he might return to a position of power just as transformative AI is hitting hard in, say, 2029, it would be to spend more time developing a positive vision and story for the American people. Boring may be best in many scenarios, but as I so often say these days, the scarcest resource is a positive vision for the future. And there's a good chance that the current or the next administration will be called on to do more than muddle through. With that, I hope you enjoyed this window into the world view, mindset, and thinking behind the United States approach to AI and national security, with former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. Jake Sullivan, former National Security Advisor to President Biden, and currently the inaugural Kissinger Professor of the Practice of State Craft and World Order. Welcome to The Cognitive Revolution.