> Calling a search engine AI seems a little strange. It's standard in industry. Search is an AI problem. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S00

> Calling a search engine AI seems a little strange. It's standard in industry. Search is an AI problem. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370299000752 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000437029... > The international norm (Microsoft, Apple, every other big company) is to obey China's command. No that's what companies without AI guidelines do. Violating international norms is when the US, Germany, and Japan would complain when their governments would surveil as much and as invasive as China is doing. China's surveillance apparatus is NOT the international norm! > From the article it sounds like that happened in 2017, before the AI principles existed. Yes. So Sundar Pichai introduced those guidelines, knewing full well that they were dead in the water. > It wouldn't make it impossible, it's already impossible. One of the scariest conclusions. Really pause and take it in. How significant is this? > What grave harm would be caused that doesn't already exist? This is a weird reasoning for me. It reads to me as similar to: People are going to die anyway, what grave harm would be caused by murdering them by your own hands?