A big boss from Saudi Arabia's money group said they want to be a place where smart computers learn and work outside of America. They have lots of energy and money to make this happen. This is part of their plan to become more important in technology and AI worldwide. Read from source...

1. The title of the article is misleading and sensationalized. It implies that Saudi Arabia is pitching itself as a viable alternative to the U.S. for AI activities, when in reality, it is just expressing its interest and potential to become an AI hub outside the U.S.
2. The article relies heavily on quotes from Yasir Al-Rumayyan, who is not an expert or a credible source on AI matters. He is the head of Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, which does not qualify him to speak authoritatively on behalf of the kingdom's AI ambitions.
3. The article ignores the fact that Saudi Arabia has been facing challenges and criticism in its pursuit of technological advancement, especially regarding human rights issues, gender inequality, and censorship. These factors may hinder the country's ability to attract top talent and investment in the AI sector.
4. The article downplays the competitive advantage that the U.S. has in terms of its existing AI infrastructure, research, and innovation. The U.S. is home to many leading AI companies and institutions, such as Google, Facebook, OpenAI, etc., which have a significant head start over other countries in the field.
5. The article fails to provide any concrete evidence or data to support the claim that Saudi Arabia is fairly well positioned to be an AI hub outside of the U.S. It does not mention any specific projects, partnerships, or achievements that the kingdom has accomplished or plans to accomplish in the near future.
6. The article uses emotive language and positive spin throughout the text, such as "mandated", "driving", "fairly well positioned", etc., which create a sense of urgency and excitement around Saudi Arabia's AI ambitions, without providing any factual basis or analysis.
7. The article ends with an irrelevant image via Shutterstock, which has nothing to do with the topic of the article. It seems like a lazy attempt to add some visual interest to the story, rather than enhancing its quality or credibility.