6 ms·

I don't want to cast the central concern as trivial, because it's real, BUT, c'mon, "beating China in AI is imperative?" Grow up. To "beat" anybody (and for tha

I don't want to cast the central concern as trivial, because it's real, BUT, c'mon, "beating China in AI is imperative?" Grow up. To "beat" anybody (and for that matter to have any sort of claim to deserving to "win" anything), you would want to "beat China at Not-Being-A-Repressive-Dystopia" wouldn't you? Perhaps including "beating China at Not-Using-AI-To-Be-A-Repressive-Dystopia?"

stadium 5y ago
Survailance and drone swarm assassins are two areas to be concerned about.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- arpa 5y ago
  also AI-assisted protein folding, AI-assisted genetic engineering and what have you.
sidlls 5y ago
To play a bit of devil’s advocate, “beating China at Not-Being-A-Repressive-Dystopia” requires ensuring China’s influence in the world is minimized or contained. It’s hard to beat them if they take over, in other words. (Note that this also requires defeating the same kinds of forces domestically.)
- kbenson 5y ago
  But isn't that begging the question? Couldn't we just as easily say "beating China at not starting the zombie apocalypse" requires ensuring China doesn't invest in weird chemical experimentation with death and voodoo? We're taking as a given that China's end state is a repressive dystopia, just as we would have to take as a given that China would start a zombie apocalypse. The only difference in one is seen as patently absurd by all people, and the other is only seen that way by some.
  - themacguffinman 5y ago
    Considering that China's current state is a repressive dystopia, it's quite hard to compare the fairly mundane prediction that this will continue to a claim about zombies that contradicts available scientific evidence. I feel like I'm going crazy seeing people make absurd comparisons like this. Do you honestly not see the difference between an inference based on China's current behavior and ... zombies? Are you playing at some broader rhetorical point or do you literally think both claims are equally absurd?
    - kbenson 5y ago
      > Considering that China's current state is a repressive dystopia Is it? I know that's how it's presented, and it's easy to assume that presentation is accurate, but do most the people living there see it that way? I don't doubt it's a repressive dystopia for those that are repressed, and that's horrible, but does that make it a repressive dystopia overall? Because I'm pretty sure there's quite a number of different subgroups I could pick out in the U.S. that would say we live in a repressive dystopia already. > I feel like I'm going crazy seeing people make absurd comparisons like this. It was made absurd on purpose, to not muddy the waters with a comparison to something that people could have actual questions about. > Are you playing at some broader rhetorical point I thought that was obvious with the "begging the question" part, which literally means that something is being used as fact that hasn't been proven. I'm not saying China is great, or better than the U.S. or west or anything. What I am saying is that when people throw around statements that assume China's natural end state, and what they are moving towards right now, is a repressive dystopia, I'm going to want to see some evidence or reasoning to back it up. Otherwise how do I know it's not just "everything I've read in USA Today the last few years leads me to believe that, therefore it must be true"?
      - soco 5y ago
        Of course we can get into a post-modernist post-truth debate, but the facts bring one back to reality: Uighurs, suppression of speech, Hong Kong, military expansion, political influence, the Great Firewall, are all real points making it difficult to keep the discussion on the philosophical level.
- 8note 5y ago
  If that containment involves forcing other countries to do your bidding, all you're doing is beating china at being a repressive dystopia
  - sidlls 5y ago
    There’s definitely a thin line there. Bluntly, if other countries don’t oppose China they’re part of the problem and I have absolutely no qualms with working around them or forcing compliance if required. We should certainly tread carefully, though.
paxys 5y ago
That is exactly what it is though. If this was 1940 and China was building a nuclear bomb, you wouldn't fight them by disarming yourself and promoting peace. You would build a bigger bomb first. If USA and others tightly regulate tech, and AI advancements in China continue unchecked, then in a few decades there will be no resisting them from doing literally whatever.
- SapporoChris 5y ago
  "You would build a bigger bomb" Or, you would make the enemy's bomb ineffective. I understand that history went with build a bigger bomb. But honestly, that's not the only option. It's a disservice to everyone to think that arms race is the only answer.
  - unishark 5y ago
    AI is not only a weapon though, it is literally intelligence itself. So it can be both the bomb and the means to counter the bomb. It's basically the same as saying we need to match their advances in science.
  - pbourke 5y ago
    > Or, you would make the enemy's bomb ineffective. Everything in the nuclear arena is existential, including countermeasures. Hence the treaty limitations on missile defense and mania for “Star Wars” (orbital anti missile systems) in the 80’s. An advance that checkmates your rival’s nuclear capability could escalate to a preemptive conflict pretty quickly.
- 8note 5y ago
  If this was a while later, both groups would realize that all the bomb building is pretty bad for everyone and would agree to disarm a bit
jollybean 5y ago
You're right ... AI is a bad choice of words, but keeping up with China in these things will essentially be a geopolitical necessity.

stadium 5y ago

Survailance and drone swarm assassins are two areas to be concerned about.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
arpa 5y ago
also AI-assisted protein folding, AI-assisted genetic engineering and what have you.

sidlls 5y ago

To play a bit of devil’s advocate, “beating China at Not-Being-A-Repressive-Dystopia” requires ensuring China’s influence in the world is minimized or contained. It’s hard to beat them if they take over, in other words. (Note that this also requires defeating the same kinds of forces domestically.)

kbenson 5y ago
But isn't that begging the question? Couldn't we just as easily say "beating China at not starting the zombie apocalypse" requires ensuring China doesn't invest in weird chemical experimentation with death and voodoo? We're taking as a given that China's end state is a repressive dystopia, just as we would have to take as a given that China would start a zombie apocalypse. The only difference in one is seen as patently absurd by all people, and the other is only seen that way by some.
- themacguffinman 5y ago
  Considering that China's current state is a repressive dystopia, it's quite hard to compare the fairly mundane prediction that this will continue to a claim about zombies that contradicts available scientific evidence. I feel like I'm going crazy seeing people make absurd comparisons like this. Do you honestly not see the difference between an inference based on China's current behavior and ... zombies? Are you playing at some broader rhetorical point or do you literally think both claims are equally absurd?
  - kbenson 5y ago
    > Considering that China's current state is a repressive dystopia Is it? I know that's how it's presented, and it's easy to assume that presentation is accurate, but do most the people living there see it that way? I don't doubt it's a repressive dystopia for those that are repressed, and that's horrible, but does that make it a repressive dystopia overall? Because I'm pretty sure there's quite a number of different subgroups I could pick out in the U.S. that would say we live in a repressive dystopia already. > I feel like I'm going crazy seeing people make absurd comparisons like this. It was made absurd on purpose, to not muddy the waters with a comparison to something that people could have actual questions about. > Are you playing at some broader rhetorical point I thought that was obvious with the "begging the question" part, which literally means that something is being used as fact that hasn't been proven. I'm not saying China is great, or better than the U.S. or west or anything. What I am saying is that when people throw around statements that assume China's natural end state, and what they are moving towards right now, is a repressive dystopia, I'm going to want to see some evidence or reasoning to back it up. Otherwise how do I know it's not just "everything I've read in USA Today the last few years leads me to believe that, therefore it must be true"?
    - soco 5y ago
      Of course we can get into a post-modernist post-truth debate, but the facts bring one back to reality: Uighurs, suppression of speech, Hong Kong, military expansion, political influence, the Great Firewall, are all real points making it difficult to keep the discussion on the philosophical level.
8note 5y ago
If that containment involves forcing other countries to do your bidding, all you're doing is beating china at being a repressive dystopia
- sidlls 5y ago
  There’s definitely a thin line there. Bluntly, if other countries don’t oppose China they’re part of the problem and I have absolutely no qualms with working around them or forcing compliance if required. We should certainly tread carefully, though.

paxys 5y ago

That is exactly what it is though. If this was 1940 and China was building a nuclear bomb, you wouldn't fight them by disarming yourself and promoting peace. You would build a bigger bomb first. If USA and others tightly regulate tech, and AI advancements in China continue unchecked, then in a few decades there will be no resisting them from doing literally whatever.

SapporoChris 5y ago
"You would build a bigger bomb" Or, you would make the enemy's bomb ineffective. I understand that history went with build a bigger bomb. But honestly, that's not the only option. It's a disservice to everyone to think that arms race is the only answer.
- unishark 5y ago
  AI is not only a weapon though, it is literally intelligence itself. So it can be both the bomb and the means to counter the bomb. It's basically the same as saying we need to match their advances in science.
- pbourke 5y ago
  > Or, you would make the enemy's bomb ineffective. Everything in the nuclear arena is existential, including countermeasures. Hence the treaty limitations on missile defense and mania for “Star Wars” (orbital anti missile systems) in the 80’s. An advance that checkmates your rival’s nuclear capability could escalate to a preemptive conflict pretty quickly.
8note 5y ago
If this was a while later, both groups would realize that all the bomb building is pretty bad for everyone and would agree to disarm a bit

jollybean 5y ago

You're right ... AI is a bad choice of words, but keeping up with China in these things will essentially be a geopolitical necessity.