Debating Pax Silica
Instead, what many are demanding is that the administration take a deep breath and first address serious ‘regulation’ issues.
Text size
Instead, what many are demanding is that the administration take a deep breath and first address serious ‘regulation’ issues.
Despite the passionate debates swirling around it, it’s noticeable that many — our “Fox Silik” Veep especially — aren’t aware of what Pax Silica is all about.
An example of this might be the current viral fears raised against AI data centers which Pax Silica is supposed to build quickly. Many fear these centers will cause havoc to our electricity and water supplies, to the environment, and to the general welfare and safety of the affected Aetas and farmers.
While these grave concerns — fueled partly by controversies surrounding AI data centers abroad — merit serious attention and policies, many are urgently calling for sobriety and honest discussions, citing timely new technologies that precisely address the problems.
Debates are still ongoing. But what is clear is that we’re dealing with two compelling competing narratives.
One side believes AI data centers are dark bogeymen, while the other side hoists it as an attractive banner of technological innovation.
In other words, the current debates around AI data centers and the AI industry are about the yet unexplored core issue of “innovation versus regulation.”
On this issue, President Marcos Jr. is going with “innovation” after he announced his tacit support for Pax Silica in his SoNA.
Without explicitly saying so, Mr. Marcos Jr. favors “innovation,” insinuating that getting on board Pax Silica and its promises is where the country can start industrializing.
As far as I can tell, no one seriously questions the administration’s industrialization ambitions nor its plans to participate early in the many complex technological innovations the AI industry is unleashing.
Instead, what many are demanding is that the administration take a deep breath and first address serious “regulation” issues.
Not only because there’s a need to closely scrutinize all of the implications of Pax Silica but also because ironclad regulatory and welfare frameworks aren’t yet firmly in place.
As these debates rage, however, some optimistic policy experts say compromises are reachable, arguing that Pax Silica is merely the first step towards another chance at our industrialization.
Compromises, however, come only if all parties know exactly what’s being tabled, which brings us to the fact that we can’t skip Pax Silica 101.
Taking matters directly from the horse’s mouth, the chairman of the official Pax Silica forum Michael Sharpe says Pax Silica comes from the Latin “pax,” meaning “peace, stability and long-term prosperity” and “silica,” referring to “silicon’s precursor (silicon dioxide) — the base material for semiconductors and many electronic components essential to AI.”
In case you’re puzzled as to why there’s an explicit emphasis on silicon rather than AI, it’s because AI isn’t really about algorithms, data and even human talent.
AI instead lies in one fundamental reality: it runs on physical supply chains, that is AI is totally dependent on advances in semiconductors, the manufacturing of it, and the processing of critical minerals that go into it.
“Peace” enters the picture primarily because of geopolitical worries that some major countries are now either hoarding critical minerals or holding hostage advanced computer chips in order to ensure their own dominance of the AI industry.
So, the US-led Pax Silica initiative, formed late last year, is there to strengthen and ensure that the worldwide manufacture and the supply chains for semiconductors and critical minerals, the 21st century’s defining commodities as were oil and steel that fueled the 20th century’s industrial powerhouses, are there for everybody to exploit.
Still, whether or not Pax Silica lives up to its promises to us and the rest of the world remains yet to be seen.
