9 ms·

Good for Google, Bad for America

95 points by AndrewBissell 7y ago

kahnjw 7y ago
Pretty unbelievable the times published this opinion piece by Thiel. Without any real evidence to back his claim and given Thiel's past, its hard for me to imagine this isn't him pushing a false narrative for some emotionally charged ulterior motive.
- AndrewBissell 7y ago
  What claims do you see him putting forth "without any real evidence"? I don't see how it's at all off base to assume China might take a military interest in AI labs Google establishes in Beijing. EDIT: Ah, I see that Thiel said elsewhere that China already carried out espionage inside Google and hasn't backed this up. That claim is absent from this op-ed but it may be CYA for those comments on his part.
  - kahnjw 7y ago
    Context: Thiel originally made this claim in a speech where he claimed Google is committing "treason." [1] Given his "evidence" that's obviously insane. A large fractions of large multinationals have offices in China. I assume the editors at the Times told him that was a non-starter so he toned it down a bit. Nowhere in the article does he disclose that he, at one point, owned 10% of facebook, a top competitor of Google's. Most ironically, Facebook announced they'd open an office in china over a year ago [2]. He makes unsubstantiated claims that technology coming from this lab will be useful in the military before all else etc. He neglects to mention Google's public intent for the office, which has nothing to do with the military [3]. [1] https://www.axios.com/peter-thiel-says-fbi-cia-should-probe-google-9846a042-e689-49bc-bdc7-595988ce5d8c.html https://www.axios.com/peter-thiel-says-fbi-cia-should-probe-... [2] https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/24/17607992/facebook-allowed-china-censorship-ban-hangzhou-zuckerberg https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/24/17607992/facebook-allowed... [3] https://ai.google/research/join-us/beijing/ https://ai.google/research/join-us/beijing/
    - espeed 7y ago
      China currently does not have the capability to design and make advanced hardware microprocessor chips. The Google/IBM OpenPOWER Foundation is simultaneously researching nextgen chips and teaching China how to do so. Giving China this capability, i.e. gifting the gap, will give China an advanced hardware capability they do not have and did not earn. It will undoubtedly be used by the Chinese military. The supercomputer labs is the primary target. The AI race is already a big unknown, and the Chinese government internal checks and balances are inorganic and not yet tested. Remember the tenets, be slow to speak and be wary of unearned wisdom. What is the point of accelerating this?
  - kahnjw 7y ago
    >EDIT: Ah, I see that Thiel said elsewhere that China already carried out espionage inside Google and hasn't backed this up. That claim is absent from this op-ed but it may be CYA for those comments on his part. I'm sure editors at the Times struck that as well. Still it makes you wonder, why publish him at all?
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    Google publicly announced in 2010 that China hacked them, and that's why Google withdrew from China in the first place.
  - fredgrott 7y ago
    was there any google entities linked to the HP cloud europe china hacker break ins?
- lonelappde 7y ago
  The NYT Opinion pages is a traditional forum for socioeconomic elites to push self-serving propaganda. Nothing unusual about that. Recall that Theil is on record as saying that democracy and women voting is bad for America. https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
avsteele 7y ago
The premises here range from true to arguable. 1) AI/ML is a dual use technology, one with both civilian and military uses...plausible. Worth noting that ITAR* already restricts transfer of a variety of technologies to others. Maybe AI/ML should count? 2) China is the enemy of the US...debatable 3) Google's presence in China gives it government greater access to these tech's than it otherwise would have...plausible Seems like a generic opinion piece to me. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_...
- curt15 7y ago
  > 3) Google's presence in China gives it government greater access to these tech's than it otherwise would have...plausible Even if Google didn't have an office in China, Chinese researchers could just as well learn from NIPS proceedings, etc.
  - espeed 7y ago
    This is not about NIPS proceedings. It's about advanced nextgen chip hardware capability, something China does not have. It would be like giving someone a rocketship when they don't know how to build and pilot a plane. Inorganic technology transfers -- phase shifts like this -- are ripe for disaster. Without internal time-tested checks and balances, gifting the gap is a recipe for chaos -- NOT a recipe for containment. How long will the chaos last? Hard to see. Does anyone have a model for that? It could lead to their undoing, and others' too. Haven't we learned that lesson yet?
thesausageking 7y ago
Let me see if I understand this right: New Zealand citizen and Facebook board member Peter Thiel criticizes UK-based DeepMind and its sister company Google for working with non-US countries on AI technology. In addition, there's no mention that three of Thiel's key investments (Space X, Palantir, and Anduril) require contracts from the US government, which is run by a President who Thiel helped get elected and is very hostile towards China.
- noobermin 7y ago
  Google is Thiel's rival, this should be the lens through which everyone reading this piece reads it.
- pixelrevision 7y ago
  Also no mention of the fact that palantir and anduril may have their own list of ethical challenges.
- aloukissas 7y ago
  It's a huge fail by the NYT that they failed to disclose Thiel's role as a Facebook board member, etc. This is no opinion piece, it's aiming to benefit the writer and his interests/investments.
  - espeed 7y ago
    Many people have eyes on this. This is not about an investment.
  - creaghpatr 7y ago
    It absolutely is an opinion piece which is why the disclosure is not required. Why would someone write an op-ed that's not to their benefit?
    - aloukissas 7y ago
      Yup. The quality standards on opinion pieces, even at NYT has drastically decreased.
espeed 7y ago
Eric Schmidt chairs the Defense Innovation Board (DIB) [1], the US government knows about the Google/IBM China relationship. One big concern is with the China/Google/IBM OpenPOWER [2,3] collaboration. Advanced hardware chip technology is one big thing China currently does not have. The US doesn't want the Google/IBM OpenPOWER Foundation to hand China the keys to the kingdom in the form of advanced microprocessor chip technology and know-how, thus giving away the US hardware chip advantage, i.e. gifting the gap... ~> IBM Venture with China Stirs Concerns (2015) https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/business/ibm-project-in-china-raises-us-concerns.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/business/ibm-project-in-c... ~> China has never had a real chip industry. Making AI chips could change that (2018) https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612569/china-has-never-had-a-real-chip-industry-making-ai-chips-could-change-that/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612569/china-has-never-ha... [1] https://innovation.defense.gov https://innovation.defense.gov [2] https://openpowerfoundation.org https://openpowerfoundation.org [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPOWER_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPOWER_Foundation
- addicted 7y ago
  China arguably is even further behind in software. So we should make sure that all open source software development is shut down, especially since software’s role in military technology s only growing, lest China gets access to it. I’m all in favor of Gothub being banned, and while we’re at it let’s get rid of the AOSP as well. And Linux is clearly a curse and while we’re at it let’s jail Microsoft execs for open sourcing .Net as well.
  - espeed 7y ago
    Some things are more significant than others. Like giving someone fire for the first time. Epochs mark the era before and after. Gifting the gap changes the game.
skybrian 7y ago
Wait until he finds out that Google researchers publish scientific papers about the latest machine learning advances for the entire world to read. And so do universities! Heck, teenagers are learning about this stuff! Why allow that? The logical conclusion of "we shouldn't let China have machine learning" is that it should be locked down like nuclear weapons research. But it would be even more difficult to control, because you only need graphics cards, not uranium.
- buboard 7y ago
  We cannot know what research they don't publish. Google also patents DL stuff, sometimes ridiculously broad like the patent for Dropout. And they gobble up any companies that have a chance to rival them, like DeepMind. Google is an advertising company though, it's where they make their money. I doubt we ll see real AI or weapons from them.
tracer4201 7y ago
FWIW, I don’t take anything from the NYT (especially opeds) at face value. Same goes for generally any media outlet, but NYT (also other outlets) and tech companies are competitors. Keep that in mind and take the NYT’s weekly piece on Google, FB, Amazon, Apple etc almost being the worst companies in the world with a pinch of salt.
remontoire 7y ago
I find it more than a little surprising that no one here has an issue with google starting an AI lab in China. Instead all I see pointed out are the motives of the author.
- alkibiades 7y ago
  defending your country or its interests isn’t woke. it’s better to help it’s adversaries and hurt your own country. that’s the only way to show you’re not a racist.
  - ceph_ 7y ago
    This comment is nothing but you dogwhistling about your political views. Keep this off HN.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      I think alkibiades was being sarcastic. I can't be sure, though...
  - dang 7y ago
    Would you please stop posting political flamebait to HN? We ban accounts that keep doing this, regardless of their politics. It's tedious and provokes worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
buboard 7y ago
I think we should all totally disregard Thiel as a lunatic. It's not as if he has been right in any of his choices so far
- Jyaif 7y ago
  He was right about funding the Trump campaign.
  - bobwaycott 7y ago
    I think there’s a difference between betting on a winning horse and making the right choices.
  - buboard 7y ago
    among other things. i forgot the /s in my comment
  - notfromhere 7y ago
    I would run the other way from any political campaign that Thiel finds agreeable. The man is an oligarch that doesn't care for democracy.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
AzzieElbab 7y ago
Lots of noise about who Thiel is, not a blip on why he is wrong. Usually a good bet for him being right
decoyworker 7y ago
'At its core, artificial intelligence is a military technology.' False premise. How is it a military technology at its core as opposed to any other technology? Or every technology is a military technology at its core, in which case, so what?
- yreg 7y ago
  >A.I. is a military technology. Forget the sci-fi fantasy (...) these tools are nevertheless valuable to any army. I guess cars and packaged food are also ‚a military technology‘?
  - espeed 7y ago
    Yes, especially when other armies were still on horses, food was fast to spoil and foodlines were hard to maintain. Planes were too, so were satellites. Still are. Any sufficiently advanced technology gives you an advantage and serves as a deterrent, especially when no one else has it. Giving it away is giving away your country and your allies' hard-earned, time-tested, long-term advantage. But that's just part of it, there are other factors to consider too. Huge unknowns on the horizon. The question is what is driving this play?
- M2Ys4U 7y ago
  He owns Palantir. Guess what they do....
- unethical_ban 7y ago
  I am dumbfounded at how many people are missing his point. - When airplanes came out, their first application was military. - When networks and computers came out, their first application was military. - When satellites were first developed, their first application was military. A.I. has a lot of uses, but it is another new technology, a whole new field of computer science that is rapidly evolving and has clear, identifiable military applications. And its early stage of development means that each breakthrough can pose a strategic military advantage. This is true whether you agree with his point about the morality of Google partnering with China.
ArmandGrillet 7y ago
Good for Thiel, Bad for Journalism. I expect to see people pushing for their own agenda on Twitter, not on a journal that won 100+ Pulitzer prizes.
- chrisco255 7y ago
  I fail to see how this is distinct from any other opinion article in the NY Times.
- espeed 7y ago
  How many NYT op-eds has Thiel written? He's only written one tweet [1]. It's rare. The significance of that should tell you something. [1] https://twitter.com/peterthiel https://twitter.com/peterthiel
- alkibiades 7y ago
  all that rag is used for is pushing people’s agenda. you just don’t notice it until it’s somethijg you disagree with
tantalor 7y ago
The screwdriver is a military technology. Forget the sci-fi fantasy; what is powerful about actually existing screwdrivers is its application to relatively mundane tasks like driving screws and carpentry. Though less uncanny than Frankenstein’s monster, these tools are nevertheless valuable to any army.
- alkibiades 7y ago
  i suppose you wanted nuclear research to happen in germany and japan rather than america then? it’s just like a screwdriver, that’s why china is using AI for tracking and oppressing their uighur minorities
  - craftyguy 7y ago
    > it’s just like a screwdriver, that’s why china is using AI for tracking and oppressing their uighur minorities I don't think a screwdriver can be used to oppress millions of people.
- Symmetry 7y ago
  I think using screwdrivers as an analogy underplays the potential importance of AI. Electricity would be a better analogy.
  - alkibiades 7y ago
    nukes is the best.
alkibiades 7y ago
you know someone’s right when people attack them as a person instead of their message
dsjoerg 7y ago
Should nations regulate AI like they regulate advanced military technologies? Or like they do crypto? I say no, the genie is way too far out of the bottle for this to be effective. Any nation that wants an advantage in AI will have to secretly develop their own advances and rely on secrecy rather than regulation to preserve their advantage. Any nation that attempts to regulate AI tech for military purposes will only be hurting themselves, and gaining little.
- espeed 7y ago
  Hardware asymmetry is one of the things that secures your advantage. 10th generation chips vs 5th generation chips gives you asymmetric advantage, just like 5th generation fighters vs 3rd generation fighters are no contest. The ability to design and manufacture your own chips guarantees supply and the control to optimize and scale production capacity as demand requires. We invented the microprocessor and SV has 40+ years of accumulated knowledge and hard-earned experience built into every chip. When an adversary is 40 years behind and has not yet developed the capability to make their own chips, that's significant. We rode that curve from beginning to end, and catching a ride on an exponential rocketship gives you a massive a head start -- a secure long-term advantage, one that's almost insurmountable if you don't give it away. So let's not do that. There's an optimal path. Let's find it.
  - debatem1 7y ago
    China has extensive fab capacity down to 28nm and in-country access to processes as low as 16nm. That puts them roughly where we were in 2011. They also have market access to 10nm and will likely have market access to 3nm before the US has in-country access to it. Furthermore, the actual location of those advanced fabs are all in SE Asia, particularly Taiwan and South Korea. Tech transfer is inevitable, market access will continue to exist in peacetime, and in the event of any conflict they will simply take what they want. Meanwhile, the US is basically stalled around 7nm and has been for quite some time. Taken together that means that we have at most an 8 year lead on what is in play literally right now in china. Given their investment level it's pretty likely that they will hit parity within two years. And Huawei was first to market with a 7nm CPU design. This is what you term a "secure long-term advantage"?

95 points by AndrewBissell 7y ago

Pretty unbelievable the times published this opinion piece by Thiel. Without any real evidence to back his claim and given Thiel's past, its hard for me to imagine this isn't him pushing a false narrative for some emotionally charged ulterior motive.

AndrewBissell 7y ago
What claims do you see him putting forth "without any real evidence"? I don't see how it's at all off base to assume China might take a military interest in AI labs Google establishes in Beijing. EDIT: Ah, I see that Thiel said elsewhere that China already carried out espionage inside Google and hasn't backed this up. That claim is absent from this op-ed but it may be CYA for those comments on his part.
- kahnjw 7y ago
  Context: Thiel originally made this claim in a speech where he claimed Google is committing "treason." [1] Given his "evidence" that's obviously insane. A large fractions of large multinationals have offices in China. I assume the editors at the Times told him that was a non-starter so he toned it down a bit. Nowhere in the article does he disclose that he, at one point, owned 10% of facebook, a top competitor of Google's. Most ironically, Facebook announced they'd open an office in china over a year ago [2]. He makes unsubstantiated claims that technology coming from this lab will be useful in the military before all else etc. He neglects to mention Google's public intent for the office, which has nothing to do with the military [3]. [1] https://www.axios.com/peter-thiel-says-fbi-cia-should-probe-google-9846a042-e689-49bc-bdc7-595988ce5d8c.html https://www.axios.com/peter-thiel-says-fbi-cia-should-probe-... [2] https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/24/17607992/facebook-allowed-china-censorship-ban-hangzhou-zuckerberg https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/24/17607992/facebook-allowed... [3] https://ai.google/research/join-us/beijing/ https://ai.google/research/join-us/beijing/
  - espeed 7y ago
    China currently does not have the capability to design and make advanced hardware microprocessor chips. The Google/IBM OpenPOWER Foundation is simultaneously researching nextgen chips and teaching China how to do so. Giving China this capability, i.e. gifting the gap, will give China an advanced hardware capability they do not have and did not earn. It will undoubtedly be used by the Chinese military. The supercomputer labs is the primary target. The AI race is already a big unknown, and the Chinese government internal checks and balances are inorganic and not yet tested. Remember the tenets, be slow to speak and be wary of unearned wisdom. What is the point of accelerating this?
- kahnjw 7y ago
  >EDIT: Ah, I see that Thiel said elsewhere that China already carried out espionage inside Google and hasn't backed this up. That claim is absent from this op-ed but it may be CYA for those comments on his part. I'm sure editors at the Times struck that as well. Still it makes you wonder, why publish him at all?
- lonelappde 7y ago
  Google publicly announced in 2010 that China hacked them, and that's why Google withdrew from China in the first place.
- fredgrott 7y ago
  was there any google entities linked to the HP cloud europe china hacker break ins?
lonelappde 7y ago
The NYT Opinion pages is a traditional forum for socioeconomic elites to push self-serving propaganda. Nothing unusual about that. Recall that Theil is on record as saying that democracy and women voting is bad for America. https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

avsteele 7y ago

The premises here range from true to arguable. 1) AI/ML is a dual use technology, one with both civilian and military uses...plausible. Worth noting that ITAR* already restricts transfer of a variety of technologies to others. Maybe AI/ML should count? 2) China is the enemy of the US...debatable 3) Google's presence in China gives it government greater access to these tech's than it otherwise would have...plausible Seems like a generic opinion piece to me. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_...

curt15 7y ago
> 3) Google's presence in China gives it government greater access to these tech's than it otherwise would have...plausible Even if Google didn't have an office in China, Chinese researchers could just as well learn from NIPS proceedings, etc.
- espeed 7y ago
  This is not about NIPS proceedings. It's about advanced nextgen chip hardware capability, something China does not have. It would be like giving someone a rocketship when they don't know how to build and pilot a plane. Inorganic technology transfers -- phase shifts like this -- are ripe for disaster. Without internal time-tested checks and balances, gifting the gap is a recipe for chaos -- NOT a recipe for containment. How long will the chaos last? Hard to see. Does anyone have a model for that? It could lead to their undoing, and others' too. Haven't we learned that lesson yet?

thesausageking 7y ago

Let me see if I understand this right: New Zealand citizen and Facebook board member Peter Thiel criticizes UK-based DeepMind and its sister company Google for working with non-US countries on AI technology. In addition, there's no mention that three of Thiel's key investments (Space X, Palantir, and Anduril) require contracts from the US government, which is run by a President who Thiel helped get elected and is very hostile towards China.

noobermin 7y ago
Google is Thiel's rival, this should be the lens through which everyone reading this piece reads it.
pixelrevision 7y ago
Also no mention of the fact that palantir and anduril may have their own list of ethical challenges.
aloukissas 7y ago
It's a huge fail by the NYT that they failed to disclose Thiel's role as a Facebook board member, etc. This is no opinion piece, it's aiming to benefit the writer and his interests/investments.
- espeed 7y ago
  Many people have eyes on this. This is not about an investment.
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  It absolutely is an opinion piece which is why the disclosure is not required. Why would someone write an op-ed that's not to their benefit?
  - aloukissas 7y ago
    Yup. The quality standards on opinion pieces, even at NYT has drastically decreased.

espeed 7y ago

Eric Schmidt chairs the Defense Innovation Board (DIB) [1], the US government knows about the Google/IBM China relationship. One big concern is with the China/Google/IBM OpenPOWER [2,3] collaboration. Advanced hardware chip technology is one big thing China currently does not have. The US doesn't want the Google/IBM OpenPOWER Foundation to hand China the keys to the kingdom in the form of advanced microprocessor chip technology and know-how, thus giving away the US hardware chip advantage, i.e. gifting the gap... ~> IBM Venture with China Stirs Concerns (2015) https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/business/ibm-project-in-china-raises-us-concerns.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/business/ibm-project-in-c... ~> China has never had a real chip industry. Making AI chips could change that (2018) https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612569/china-has-never-had-a-real-chip-industry-making-ai-chips-could-change-that/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612569/china-has-never-ha... [1] https://innovation.defense.gov https://innovation.defense.gov [2] https://openpowerfoundation.org https://openpowerfoundation.org [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPOWER_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPOWER_Foundation

addicted 7y ago
China arguably is even further behind in software. So we should make sure that all open source software development is shut down, especially since software’s role in military technology s only growing, lest China gets access to it. I’m all in favor of Gothub being banned, and while we’re at it let’s get rid of the AOSP as well. And Linux is clearly a curse and while we’re at it let’s jail Microsoft execs for open sourcing .Net as well.
- espeed 7y ago
  Some things are more significant than others. Like giving someone fire for the first time. Epochs mark the era before and after. Gifting the gap changes the game.

skybrian 7y ago

Wait until he finds out that Google researchers publish scientific papers about the latest machine learning advances for the entire world to read. And so do universities! Heck, teenagers are learning about this stuff! Why allow that? The logical conclusion of "we shouldn't let China have machine learning" is that it should be locked down like nuclear weapons research. But it would be even more difficult to control, because you only need graphics cards, not uranium.

buboard 7y ago
We cannot know what research they don't publish. Google also patents DL stuff, sometimes ridiculously broad like the patent for Dropout. And they gobble up any companies that have a chance to rival them, like DeepMind. Google is an advertising company though, it's where they make their money. I doubt we ll see real AI or weapons from them.

tracer4201 7y ago

FWIW, I don’t take anything from the NYT (especially opeds) at face value. Same goes for generally any media outlet, but NYT (also other outlets) and tech companies are competitors. Keep that in mind and take the NYT’s weekly piece on Google, FB, Amazon, Apple etc almost being the worst companies in the world with a pinch of salt.

remontoire 7y ago

I find it more than a little surprising that no one here has an issue with google starting an AI lab in China. Instead all I see pointed out are the motives of the author.

alkibiades 7y ago
defending your country or its interests isn’t woke. it’s better to help it’s adversaries and hurt your own country. that’s the only way to show you’re not a racist.
- ceph_ 7y ago
  This comment is nothing but you dogwhistling about your political views. Keep this off HN.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    I think alkibiades was being sarcastic. I can't be sure, though...
- dang 7y ago
  Would you please stop posting political flamebait to HN? We ban accounts that keep doing this, regardless of their politics. It's tedious and provokes worse. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

buboard 7y ago

I think we should all totally disregard Thiel as a lunatic. It's not as if he has been right in any of his choices so far

Jyaif 7y ago
He was right about funding the Trump campaign.
- bobwaycott 7y ago
  I think there’s a difference between betting on a winning horse and making the right choices.
- buboard 7y ago
  among other things. i forgot the /s in my comment
- notfromhere 7y ago
  I would run the other way from any political campaign that Thiel finds agreeable. The man is an oligarch that doesn't care for democracy.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

AzzieElbab 7y ago

Lots of noise about who Thiel is, not a blip on why he is wrong. Usually a good bet for him being right

decoyworker 7y ago

'At its core, artificial intelligence is a military technology.' False premise. How is it a military technology at its core as opposed to any other technology? Or every technology is a military technology at its core, in which case, so what?

yreg 7y ago
>A.I. is a military technology. Forget the sci-fi fantasy (...) these tools are nevertheless valuable to any army. I guess cars and packaged food are also ‚a military technology‘?
- espeed 7y ago
  Yes, especially when other armies were still on horses, food was fast to spoil and foodlines were hard to maintain. Planes were too, so were satellites. Still are. Any sufficiently advanced technology gives you an advantage and serves as a deterrent, especially when no one else has it. Giving it away is giving away your country and your allies' hard-earned, time-tested, long-term advantage. But that's just part of it, there are other factors to consider too. Huge unknowns on the horizon. The question is what is driving this play?
M2Ys4U 7y ago
He owns Palantir. Guess what they do....
unethical_ban 7y ago
I am dumbfounded at how many people are missing his point. - When airplanes came out, their first application was military. - When networks and computers came out, their first application was military. - When satellites were first developed, their first application was military. A.I. has a lot of uses, but it is another new technology, a whole new field of computer science that is rapidly evolving and has clear, identifiable military applications. And its early stage of development means that each breakthrough can pose a strategic military advantage. This is true whether you agree with his point about the morality of Google partnering with China.

ArmandGrillet 7y ago

Good for Thiel, Bad for Journalism. I expect to see people pushing for their own agenda on Twitter, not on a journal that won 100+ Pulitzer prizes.

chrisco255 7y ago
I fail to see how this is distinct from any other opinion article in the NY Times.
espeed 7y ago
How many NYT op-eds has Thiel written? He's only written one tweet [1]. It's rare. The significance of that should tell you something. [1] https://twitter.com/peterthiel https://twitter.com/peterthiel
alkibiades 7y ago
all that rag is used for is pushing people’s agenda. you just don’t notice it until it’s somethijg you disagree with

tantalor 7y ago

The screwdriver is a military technology. Forget the sci-fi fantasy; what is powerful about actually existing screwdrivers is its application to relatively mundane tasks like driving screws and carpentry. Though less uncanny than Frankenstein’s monster, these tools are nevertheless valuable to any army.

alkibiades 7y ago
i suppose you wanted nuclear research to happen in germany and japan rather than america then? it’s just like a screwdriver, that’s why china is using AI for tracking and oppressing their uighur minorities
- craftyguy 7y ago
  > it’s just like a screwdriver, that’s why china is using AI for tracking and oppressing their uighur minorities I don't think a screwdriver can be used to oppress millions of people.
Symmetry 7y ago
I think using screwdrivers as an analogy underplays the potential importance of AI. Electricity would be a better analogy.
- alkibiades 7y ago
  nukes is the best.

alkibiades 7y ago

you know someone’s right when people attack them as a person instead of their message

dsjoerg 7y ago

Should nations regulate AI like they regulate advanced military technologies? Or like they do crypto? I say no, the genie is way too far out of the bottle for this to be effective. Any nation that wants an advantage in AI will have to secretly develop their own advances and rely on secrecy rather than regulation to preserve their advantage. Any nation that attempts to regulate AI tech for military purposes will only be hurting themselves, and gaining little.

espeed 7y ago
Hardware asymmetry is one of the things that secures your advantage. 10th generation chips vs 5th generation chips gives you asymmetric advantage, just like 5th generation fighters vs 3rd generation fighters are no contest. The ability to design and manufacture your own chips guarantees supply and the control to optimize and scale production capacity as demand requires. We invented the microprocessor and SV has 40+ years of accumulated knowledge and hard-earned experience built into every chip. When an adversary is 40 years behind and has not yet developed the capability to make their own chips, that's significant. We rode that curve from beginning to end, and catching a ride on an exponential rocketship gives you a massive a head start -- a secure long-term advantage, one that's almost insurmountable if you don't give it away. So let's not do that. There's an optimal path. Let's find it.
- debatem1 7y ago
  China has extensive fab capacity down to 28nm and in-country access to processes as low as 16nm. That puts them roughly where we were in 2011. They also have market access to 10nm and will likely have market access to 3nm before the US has in-country access to it. Furthermore, the actual location of those advanced fabs are all in SE Asia, particularly Taiwan and South Korea. Tech transfer is inevitable, market access will continue to exist in peacetime, and in the event of any conflict they will simply take what they want. Meanwhile, the US is basically stalled around 7nm and has been for quite some time. Taken together that means that we have at most an 8 year lead on what is in play literally right now in china. Given their investment level it's pretty likely that they will hit parity within two years. And Huawei was first to market with a 7nm CPU design. This is what you term a "secure long-term advantage"?