4 ms·

> The dangerous thing about AI regulation is that countries with fewer regulations will develop AI at a faster pace. "but countries without {child labour laws

> The dangerous thing about AI regulation is that countries with fewer regulations will develop AI at a faster pace. "but countries without {child labour laws, environment regulation, a minimum wage, slavery ban} will out compete us!"

TekMol 3y ago
That could indeed be: https://www.google.com/search?q=gdp%20china https://www.google.com/search?q=gdp%20china
- kerkeslager 3y ago
  It will always be more expensive to care about human suffering than to not. So maybe competing within capitalism isn't the only thing that matters.
HDThoreaun 3y ago
Largely true in sectors that are encumbered by those rules. US has effectively no rare earth mines due to environmental impact, labor intensive manufacturing all left... Of course it could be worth it though, pretty easy to argue it has been.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  > labor intensive manufacturing all left... It has also been leaving China for a while. You cannot hope to compete with the poorest country on labor cost, it's not a matter of regulation (well unless we're talking about capital control, but it's a completely different topic)
bpodgursky 3y ago
Does it feel as ridiculous if you s/ai/nuclear weapons/? The people worried about AI are worried that the first country that achieves ASI will achieve strategic dominance equivalent to the US as of 1946.
- eastbound 3y ago
  Heh. US’ strategic dominance is not due to nuclear weapons.
  - justrealist 3y ago
    Uh. That's definitely a statement. Can you tell me with a straight face that China's actions in the Pacific are not impacted by the US strategic nuclear arsenal?
    - littlestymaar 3y ago
      Does Pakistan has the same geopolitical influence as the US from the atomic bomb? Or France? Being a nuclear power is something shared by a few, but the US dominance has no equal. It's pretty clear that the US leadership mostly comes from its economic power, which it used to derive from its industrial strength and is now more reliant on its technological superiority (since it has sold its industry to China, which may end up as a very literal execution of the famous quote from Lenin about capitalists selling the rope to hang them).
      - ben_w 3y ago
        > Does Pakistan has the same geopolitical influence as the US from the atomic bomb? Or France? Or even the Russian Federation, which may be a better comparison: I think it was only the USA and the USSR (from whom modern Russia inherited all the weapons) who decided to fight over arsenal size well beyond the point of MAD, rather than keep to the cheapest deterrent against a first strike. That said, IMO the USA's strategic dominance between the end of WW2 and the fall of the USSR was significantly influenced by them having nukes, even though they didn't use them and I think they had more than they needed for mere deterrence — it mattered then more than now.
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        The US and the USSR were both the biggest economic powers and the biggest industrial powers back then. If anything, I think nukes actually reduced their strategic dominance because it prevented conventional conflicts because the fear of escalation and they couldn't use it nukes aggressively anyway (the US / China/ USSR love triangle in the 60-70 is a good example of that).

TekMol 3y ago

That could indeed be: https://www.google.com/search?q=gdp%20china https://www.google.com/search?q=gdp%20china

kerkeslager 3y ago
It will always be more expensive to care about human suffering than to not. So maybe competing within capitalism isn't the only thing that matters.

HDThoreaun 3y ago

Largely true in sectors that are encumbered by those rules. US has effectively no rare earth mines due to environmental impact, labor intensive manufacturing all left... Of course it could be worth it though, pretty easy to argue it has been.

littlestymaar 3y ago
> labor intensive manufacturing all left... It has also been leaving China for a while. You cannot hope to compete with the poorest country on labor cost, it's not a matter of regulation (well unless we're talking about capital control, but it's a completely different topic)

bpodgursky 3y ago

Does it feel as ridiculous if you s/ai/nuclear weapons/? The people worried about AI are worried that the first country that achieves ASI will achieve strategic dominance equivalent to the US as of 1946.

eastbound 3y ago
Heh. US’ strategic dominance is not due to nuclear weapons.
- justrealist 3y ago
  Uh. That's definitely a statement. Can you tell me with a straight face that China's actions in the Pacific are not impacted by the US strategic nuclear arsenal?
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    Does Pakistan has the same geopolitical influence as the US from the atomic bomb? Or France? Being a nuclear power is something shared by a few, but the US dominance has no equal. It's pretty clear that the US leadership mostly comes from its economic power, which it used to derive from its industrial strength and is now more reliant on its technological superiority (since it has sold its industry to China, which may end up as a very literal execution of the famous quote from Lenin about capitalists selling the rope to hang them).
    - ben_w 3y ago
      > Does Pakistan has the same geopolitical influence as the US from the atomic bomb? Or France? Or even the Russian Federation, which may be a better comparison: I think it was only the USA and the USSR (from whom modern Russia inherited all the weapons) who decided to fight over arsenal size well beyond the point of MAD, rather than keep to the cheapest deterrent against a first strike. That said, IMO the USA's strategic dominance between the end of WW2 and the fall of the USSR was significantly influenced by them having nukes, even though they didn't use them and I think they had more than they needed for mere deterrence — it mattered then more than now.
      - littlestymaar 3y ago
        The US and the USSR were both the biggest economic powers and the biggest industrial powers back then. If anything, I think nukes actually reduced their strategic dominance because it prevented conventional conflicts because the fear of escalation and they couldn't use it nukes aggressively anyway (the US / China/ USSR love triangle in the 60-70 is a good example of that).