3 ms·

George Soros recently complained that China's skill I'm AI is being used to supercharge their authoritarianism. "AI is particularly good at producing instrumen

George Soros recently complained that China's skill I'm AI is being used to supercharge their authoritarianism. "AI is particularly good at producing instruments of control that help repressive regimes and endanger open societies. Interestingly, the Coronavirus reinforced the advantage repressive regimes enjoy by legitimizing the use of personal data for public control purposes. With these advantages, one might think that Xi Jinping, who collects personal data for the surveillance of his citizens more aggressively than any other ruler in history, is bound to be successful. He certainly thinks so, and many people believe him."[1] https://www.georgesoros.com/2022/01/31/george-soros-on-china-remarks-delivered-at-the-hoover-institution/ https://www.georgesoros.com/2022/01/31/george-soros-on-china...

howaboutnope 4y ago
> The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles and mysteries. Nor did they possess a really effective system of mind-manipulation. In the past, free-thinkers and revolutionaries were often the products of the most piously orthodox education. This is not surprising. The methods employed by orthodox educators were and still are extremely inefficient. Under a scientific dictator education will really work -- with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown. -- Aldous Huxley https://www.huxley.net/bnw-revisited/ https://www.huxley.net/bnw-revisited/
systemvoltage 4y ago
NYT just did a whole series on China's Totalitarianism enabled by tech: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/technology/china-surveillance-police.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/technology/china-surveill...
offsign_p 4y ago
Not saying he's wrong here but... I'm curious why the world puts so much weight in the opinions of investment billionaires on topics they seemingly have no formal experience in. There seems to be this implicit believe in society that wealth implies superpowers across a spectrum of topics, especially politics. Personally getting tired of all the opinions from guys like Soros, Dalio, and Ackman -- the cynic in me can't help but wonder whether these types of articles are an earnest attempt at public policy, or just a veiled bull case for their next investment thesis.
- trompetenaccoun 4y ago
  Soros has divested more and more from China recently. He's since become openly critical of the regime, whereas previously he didn't have much to say about it. So you definitely have a point in terms of billionaires promoting their investments. The likes of Dalio do the same, but in his case he's bizarrely doubled down on the CCP. I do agree with you that people shouldn't listen to others simply because they're rich, that's not a basis for a logical argument. That said though if I were a Westerner with no idea about China, I would consider the opinion of people with skin in the game, and would value it over that of random others on the internet. Listening just to Soros may not be smart but you might check where most of the money goes, what most of them are saying - where the wind blows, so to speak. I don't see any billionaires moving to China In general more wealthy Mainlanders leave than the other way around. Also the government is getting stricter and stricter with their currency and exchange controls in China. Why would they need this if money weren't trying to leave? In most other countries, you can exchange as much local currency for foreign currency as you like. All this should tell a keen observer something about the direction the Xi regime is headed, if other developments like the concentration camps aren't enough of a hint.
  - concinds 4y ago
    > I would consider the opinion of people with skin in the game, and would value it over that of random others on the internet Soros has zero skin in the game. He expects Xi to no longer be in power by the end of the year; and will suffer zero consequence if he's wrong.
    - trompetenaccoun 4y ago
      He shifted his investments away from China to the US and elsewhere, and that's exactly what he's advertising now. See for example: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-17/soros-joined-by-d1-soroban-in-timely-exit-from-chinese-stakes https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-17/soros-joi... Investors don't generally bad-mouth their own holdings for obvious reasons. They'd usually sell or go short first. Look at it like this: You can't look up to them for moral guidance because they have their own money on the line and will not give you neutral advice. Case and point is that Soros apparently didn't have issues pouring millions of dollars into CCP controlled China earlier, despite already questionable ethics of such investments. But now it's gotten to a point where even people like him are pulling out and have started criticizing the Communist Party - because Xi has gone full dictator and not even billionaires and their holdings are safe anymore.
godelski 4y ago
He's not wrong, but an odd source to cite. But anyone that was at CVPR last week probably saw how much research was put into crowd counting, gate tracking, and other such systems. There is a lot of money being put into this. I know there is some good that can come out of it, but talking to people, I don't think they realize the implications for when it is used for bad. There's often the notion "but it will only be used for good" and not how power can turn quickly in a country: hence turnkey tyranny. I think our Chinese colleagues, like many of us and our European colleagues, are more hopeful about our governments than others. It is a tough situation.
concinds 4y ago
George Soros isn't a foreign policy expert. Neither is he a philosopher: he egregiously misunderstood Popper's open society concept. Having rich people controlling government, corporate action, media, and NGOs (currently the case) is not open society or democracy, it's oligarchy. See this thread: https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1039842312061374464 https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1039842312061374464 Notice that 'the West' partially supported the Hong Kong protests[0] through its US Agency for Global Media (USAGM; independent US agency), Voice of America (US state-owned), and Radio Free Asia (subsidiary to USAGM), and that the HK protests were partly violent. To be clear, the idea of billionaires funding NGOs or using media influence to achieve societal changes they desire (no matter how laudable) is not open society. edit: added link [0]: https://time.com/5860163/trump-hong-kong-funding-freeze/ https://time.com/5860163/trump-hong-kong-funding-freeze/

howaboutnope 4y ago

> The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles and mysteries. Nor did they possess a really effective system of mind-manipulation. In the past, free-thinkers and revolutionaries were often the products of the most piously orthodox education. This is not surprising. The methods employed by orthodox educators were and still are extremely inefficient. Under a scientific dictator education will really work -- with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown. -- Aldous Huxley https://www.huxley.net/bnw-revisited/ https://www.huxley.net/bnw-revisited/

systemvoltage 4y ago

NYT just did a whole series on China's Totalitarianism enabled by tech: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/technology/china-surveillance-police.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/25/technology/china-surveill...

offsign_p 4y ago

Not saying he's wrong here but... I'm curious why the world puts so much weight in the opinions of investment billionaires on topics they seemingly have no formal experience in. There seems to be this implicit believe in society that wealth implies superpowers across a spectrum of topics, especially politics. Personally getting tired of all the opinions from guys like Soros, Dalio, and Ackman -- the cynic in me can't help but wonder whether these types of articles are an earnest attempt at public policy, or just a veiled bull case for their next investment thesis.

trompetenaccoun 4y ago
Soros has divested more and more from China recently. He's since become openly critical of the regime, whereas previously he didn't have much to say about it. So you definitely have a point in terms of billionaires promoting their investments. The likes of Dalio do the same, but in his case he's bizarrely doubled down on the CCP. I do agree with you that people shouldn't listen to others simply because they're rich, that's not a basis for a logical argument. That said though if I were a Westerner with no idea about China, I would consider the opinion of people with skin in the game, and would value it over that of random others on the internet. Listening just to Soros may not be smart but you might check where most of the money goes, what most of them are saying - where the wind blows, so to speak. I don't see any billionaires moving to China In general more wealthy Mainlanders leave than the other way around. Also the government is getting stricter and stricter with their currency and exchange controls in China. Why would they need this if money weren't trying to leave? In most other countries, you can exchange as much local currency for foreign currency as you like. All this should tell a keen observer something about the direction the Xi regime is headed, if other developments like the concentration camps aren't enough of a hint.
- concinds 4y ago
  > I would consider the opinion of people with skin in the game, and would value it over that of random others on the internet Soros has zero skin in the game. He expects Xi to no longer be in power by the end of the year; and will suffer zero consequence if he's wrong.
  - trompetenaccoun 4y ago
    He shifted his investments away from China to the US and elsewhere, and that's exactly what he's advertising now. See for example: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-17/soros-joined-by-d1-soroban-in-timely-exit-from-chinese-stakes https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-17/soros-joi... Investors don't generally bad-mouth their own holdings for obvious reasons. They'd usually sell or go short first. Look at it like this: You can't look up to them for moral guidance because they have their own money on the line and will not give you neutral advice. Case and point is that Soros apparently didn't have issues pouring millions of dollars into CCP controlled China earlier, despite already questionable ethics of such investments. But now it's gotten to a point where even people like him are pulling out and have started criticizing the Communist Party - because Xi has gone full dictator and not even billionaires and their holdings are safe anymore.

godelski 4y ago

He's not wrong, but an odd source to cite. But anyone that was at CVPR last week probably saw how much research was put into crowd counting, gate tracking, and other such systems. There is a lot of money being put into this. I know there is some good that can come out of it, but talking to people, I don't think they realize the implications for when it is used for bad. There's often the notion "but it will only be used for good" and not how power can turn quickly in a country: hence turnkey tyranny. I think our Chinese colleagues, like many of us and our European colleagues, are more hopeful about our governments than others. It is a tough situation.

concinds 4y ago

George Soros isn't a foreign policy expert. Neither is he a philosopher: he egregiously misunderstood Popper's open society concept. Having rich people controlling government, corporate action, media, and NGOs (currently the case) is not open society or democracy, it's oligarchy. See this thread: https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1039842312061374464 https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1039842312061374464 Notice that 'the West' partially supported the Hong Kong protests[0] through its US Agency for Global Media (USAGM; independent US agency), Voice of America (US state-owned), and Radio Free Asia (subsidiary to USAGM), and that the HK protests were partly violent. To be clear, the idea of billionaires funding NGOs or using media influence to achieve societal changes they desire (no matter how laudable) is not open society. edit: added link [0]: https://time.com/5860163/trump-hong-kong-funding-freeze/ https://time.com/5860163/trump-hong-kong-funding-freeze/