Saying the words "deep state" has the tendency to provoke strong reactions. So what do I mean by it? The deep state is the illegible and incomprehensible networks, processes and interactions that shape the states actions and their effectiveness. I don't subscribe to the notion that deep state needs to be demolished and I don't subscribe to the notion that there is any conspiracy by the deep state.
By definition, if the deep state was a grand conspiracy it would no longer be incomprensible. Comprehensibility and even legibility are not among the essential qualities that a state seeks. Tyrannies are perfectly comprehensible. Even perfectly legible plans can be demonstrably flawed; it would not be in the best interest of the United States to have our response strategies for a Russian nuclear strike or a Chinese invasion of Taiwan fully transparent.
In fact, the deep state is essential for the functioning of any developed democracy. Others disagree: the Heritage Foundation, through Project 2025, aims to abolish the deep state. The argument goes that since the voters elect the President, the President is the unitary executive and the state -- therefore -- should be a complete extension of the President's will. What the President wishes, the state should do, instantly and without fail. Setting aside many potential fatal arguments as to why such a system is not desirable, there is one key challenge. The executive's imagination and comprehension simply cannot strech out across all the millions of people in the United States, all the possible consequences and pesky execution details. Such quantities of information cannot fit into anyone's mind all at once.
Indeed, what I have described as the Deep State is pretty mundane. It is really just bureaucracy. The head-numbing paper-pushing that makes organizations go round. Each individual form, hearing, and report is so incredibly dull. Yet, it takes great concentration to put the pieces together to get a glimpse at the bigger picture. The concept of a Deep State is not provocative because of it's components, but rather because the illegibility and incomprehensiblity of the state -- and society at large -- it centers in our discussion, evokes images of the state as an alien organism, writhing away from our control.
The Deep State is broken. This is undeniable. The invasion of Iraq was absurd and unjustifiable. Our healthcare system is in disarray. Our military budgets are completely impenetrable. Our rules regulations out of touch with innovation and progress. What is the alternative to the Deep State? Some would suggest that we should go completely free-market capitalist, let the private sector handle everything. My reply is the following: do you really think that making things private will make things more legible and comprehensible? It just shifts the buck around. It makes the state more legible and comprehensible -- the state literally does nothing -- and moves the confusion somewhere else!
Whenever one evaluates a proposal to "fix the Deep State", one must ask if the proposal is (1) actually a way to deal with all the complexities of governing a large functioning democratic nation with all of the complexities of the modern world or is it (2) actually either a way just to burn it all down so there are no functions to govern or a way just to enact a tyranny so there is no democracy to govern. Most proposals are a little of the former and a lot of the latter.
How does AI stand in relationship to all of this? Well, first, we must note that AI, Large Language Models specifically, are exceptionally gifted at paper pushing. You can throw lots of documents at LLMs and get useful summaries out. They can forward emails to the right places, and translate data from one format to another. They are literally transformers, text-in text-out, like how bueraucrats are paper-in paper-out.
AI is in a way perfectly legible: you can log and save all the internal chains of thought, and you can trace back each mathematical function to see what parameter did what. AI is also digital and in that way comprehensible: because instead of having eighty thousand different IRS agents, all nominally trained the same way, but in practice, well, they are human; instead of that, you can have eighty thousand copies of the same AI agents, applying the law with the same consistency and quality and predictability that comes with working with identical copies. AI is also scalable; it can be replicated indefinitely, limited only by power consumption and the availability of computer chips, allowing for the projection of the deep state without any restrictions related to human capital.
AI projects power. Just as a king has his court and a president has her bureaucrats, anyone who wields AI can now assert their own power in the world. A tyrant can embed digital copies of themselves in every computer, surveillance camera, and robot. Every transaction and every communication can be scrutinized without regard to the expense of human capital.
But, AI does not project power for just one person or just one entity. Anyone can wield AI and most everyone will. The world will be populated by interacting AI agents. The deep state will consist not only of bureaucrats but also of their numerous AI agents. With the rise of AI, the number of intelligences in the world will increase exponentially, making the deep state increasingly complex.