The question is not to be, or not to be. It is not even a question of whether to use it or not. The question is how it will be used.

The United States turns almost every major new technological breakthrough into some kind of weapon. The corollary to that question is why would artificial intelligence be an exception.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo posed the question many are now asking, how AI is to be used, in a jointly penned article published in the Financial Times on Monday. While they claim that the Joe Biden administration is seeking to "limit the near-term risks of AI while fostering innovation", they reveal the administration already sees the development of AI as a battleground by declaring that the US must act quickly to shape its future development.

Acknowledging that the US is "home to many of the leading companies, technologies and minds driving the AI revolution", they said that the fact it is working with others around the world to ensure the future for this technology "reflects our shared values and vision".

But the values and vision of the US cannot really be shared as they are totally narcissistic. As the Biden administration and its predecessor have made crystal clear, the US simply baits others to its domineering cause with high-sounding notions on which they can pin their own agendas.

Hence, Blinken and Raimondo can propose that G7-led action could inform an international code of conduct for private actors and governments. In the pretense that this would not be building high walls around AI technology or directly applying AI against other countries, they allege that the US is open to global engagement. In a nod to criticism that has hit home, they even claim that the US is committed to making AI work for, and designing governance with, developing countries, singling out India for a critical role. Notably, China is not mentioned.

Yet that only serves to highlight that the US' push to lead the governance of AI is not to safely harness its potential, but an integral part of its endeavors to weaponize the technology.

The two US officials are right in saying that "AI holds an exhilarating potential to improve people's lives and help solve some of the world's biggest challenges" and "that only with the combined focus, ingenuity and co-operation of the international community will we be able to fully and safely harness the potential of AI". But unless that cooperation is truly inclusive, then people will rightly continue to ask questions of Washington's intent and purpose.