4 ms·

The real lie here is that there's an ethical superpower. Just like being a billionaire (or, super-wealther, if you will), you don't get to be a superpower by d

The real lie here is that there's an ethical superpower. Just like being a billionaire (or, super-wealther, if you will), you don't get to be a superpower by doing good things. China and the US can both be bad, and they're both going to use AI for mass internal and external surveillance and weapon targeting.

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
> real lie here is that there's an ethical superpower It’s a lie in the way cats are round is a lie—actually a lie, but one nobody brought up. I don’t think Dwarkesh is arguing for global American hegemony. Just that if AI becomes dominant, having AIs embedded with American cultural values, broadly, is probably better than having ones seeded with Xi Jinping thought. > China and the US can both be bad, and they're both going to use AI for mass internal and external surveillance and weapon targeting Agree. But I don’t think any Chinese AI companies get to sue the CCP over it.
- pydry 7mo ago
  >AIs embedded with American cultural values, broadly, is probably better than having ones seeded with Xi Jinping thought. I'd really rather have a choice of both rather than be forced to accept "AI that downplays a 2 year old genocide" over "AI that covers up a 40 year massacre".
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > rather have a choice of both You do. So do I. If American AI goes by the wayside, we cease to have that choice anymore.
    - ang_cire 7mo ago
      That is also true if Chinese AI goes by the wayside, though. :P
loeber 7mo ago
This is both (1) not necessarily true -- there's no first-principles reason why being powerful implies being unethical -- and (2) deeply pessimistic and defeatist. You can apply whataboutism and say that everyone's equally bad, but I assure you that there's a pretty big difference, even down to your quality life, between the types of systems you choose to participate in.
- kelnos 7mo ago
  It's not pessimistic or defeatist; you first have to recognize the limitations and failure modes of your system before you can think about changing it. Is it possible to live in a world where powerful entities have gotten there through ethical means? Sure. We don't live in that world, though. And yes, if I said "name me one powerful person/entity that got there through ethical means", I'm sure you could give me a name. But that name would surely be an outlier.
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    Help me through the practical implications of this logic. We should concede to Chinese AI dominance because we can’t do it perfectly?

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago

> real lie here is that there's an ethical superpower It’s a lie in the way cats are round is a lie—actually a lie, but one nobody brought up. I don’t think Dwarkesh is arguing for global American hegemony. Just that if AI becomes dominant, having AIs embedded with American cultural values, broadly, is probably better than having ones seeded with Xi Jinping thought. > China and the US can both be bad, and they're both going to use AI for mass internal and external surveillance and weapon targeting Agree. But I don’t think any Chinese AI companies get to sue the CCP over it.

pydry 7mo ago
>AIs embedded with American cultural values, broadly, is probably better than having ones seeded with Xi Jinping thought. I'd really rather have a choice of both rather than be forced to accept "AI that downplays a 2 year old genocide" over "AI that covers up a 40 year massacre".
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > rather have a choice of both You do. So do I. If American AI goes by the wayside, we cease to have that choice anymore.
  - ang_cire 7mo ago
    That is also true if Chinese AI goes by the wayside, though. :P

loeber 7mo ago

This is both (1) not necessarily true -- there's no first-principles reason why being powerful implies being unethical -- and (2) deeply pessimistic and defeatist. You can apply whataboutism and say that everyone's equally bad, but I assure you that there's a pretty big difference, even down to your quality life, between the types of systems you choose to participate in.

kelnos 7mo ago
It's not pessimistic or defeatist; you first have to recognize the limitations and failure modes of your system before you can think about changing it. Is it possible to live in a world where powerful entities have gotten there through ethical means? Sure. We don't live in that world, though. And yes, if I said "name me one powerful person/entity that got there through ethical means", I'm sure you could give me a name. But that name would surely be an outlier.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  Help me through the practical implications of this logic. We should concede to Chinese AI dominance because we can’t do it perfectly?