Trump adviser and Musk confidant David Sachs is optimistic about AI

At the heart of his words is a simple concept: not to stop the race, but to win it. Sachs describes the right AI policy as a “let them cook” approach – that is, minimal regulation, as few brakes as possible, and much more trust in market forces and technology companies. For him, the big danger is not the very rapid development of AI, but the possibility that the United States will slow down – while China will continue to run ahead.

This is exactly where the gap between him and Musk is revealed. The two come from the same world, share deep political and technological ties, and are well acquainted with the power systems of Silicon Valley. But in relation to artificial intelligence, they represent two different instincts: Musk sees technology as a force that could become an independent threat to man; Sachs sees her as a strategic engine that should not be tied down too early.

This gap is not only theoretical. It concerns the question of who should control the future of artificial intelligence: governments, regulators, private companies – or the military. In the interview, Sachs also refers to the debates surrounding the security uses of AI and the tension with companies that seek to place moral limits on the use of their technology. For him, private companies should not dictate to the government how to use technological tools, especially when it comes to national security.

Musk, on the other hand, has been associated for years with a more suspicious attitude toward unbridled AI. Even as he himself builds artificial intelligence systems, he continues to warn against their future power. Sachs does not ignore the risks, but he refuses to accept the apocalyptic starting point. According to him, the problems that AI will create will also be solved through more advanced AI.

This is perhaps the deepest point of contention between them: Musk asks what will happen if the machine overtakes man; Sachs asks what would happen if America relinquished the lead to its rivals. The first warns of the future. The second warns against fear of the future.