4 ms·

Add to that all the military posturing over Taiwan and it's clear that it's not "China doesn't do what the US does", it's "China hasn't done it...yet." The ide

Add to that all the military posturing over Taiwan and it's clear that it's not "China doesn't do what the US does", it's "China hasn't done it...yet." The idea that anyone would be better off with China supplanting the US is asinine. This is the same government that committed the Tiananmen square massacre and still doesn't acknowledge that anything happened.

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
> it's "China hasn't done it...yet.” China invaded and annexed Tibet in 1959. To the degree we had a classical definition of intent-based genocide, Beijing continues to commit it in Tibet and Xinjiang. America’s conscious is stained. But it’s downright nonsense to go off about surveillance when the comparison is China.
- lovich 8mo ago
  I’m surveilled across pretty much every aspect of my life between basic Snowden level scooping of my data and public tracking like flock cameras. Democracy is increasingly becoming a joke as the richest in our society explicitly are trying to break it and we look more and more like mid 90s Russia. I want the US to win because I live in the US and it will probably benefit me, but we’ve largely stopped pretending to value the republic so I don’t think we can claim a moral standing on these topics anymore. To reference your other comment, the common American man has as much de facto ability to sue our government and/or leaders as the common Chinese man
- ang_cire 8mo ago
  1800 people detained at "alligator Alcatraz" had their records purged from ICE databases, and are completely unaccounted for. Literally disappeared, and the only people whose word we have they're alive are the same people who disappeared them. Yes, the Uyghur genocide and paramilitary suppression and settler-colonialism of Tibet and Xinjiang is horrific, and will (hopefully) be recognized in the future as a genocide on par with others that 'enjoy' historical notoriety, but let's not pretend we're not well on our way to doing that here. The rhetoric of ethnic superiority and nationalism and birthright that exists in our government is the exact same rhetoric that exists in Xi Jinping's "Imperial Han" nationalism.
  - scarecrowbob 8mo ago
    I dunno, personally I think it's actively worse; for instance I've read enough WEB DuBois and similar to know that chattel slavery didn't end because of some "goodness" in the part of the government which still is ruling us. The same government that helped murder 2M folks in Iraq. The same gov that paid death squads to kill nuns in El Salvador. At least China isn't in a position to have to reckon with how deep white supremacy runs in its culture. In fact, when I hear folks from the US talk about china without understanding their own history of racism and genocide and how that shit is still going on, all I can conclude is that they are operating under the same racist delusions that have historically brought the US to do such horrific things to the world.
    - ang_cire 7mo ago
      > At least China isn't in a position to have to reckon with how deep white supremacy runs in its culture. Han Nationalism is rooted in racial supremacy. It's explicitly been pushed as the People and the Culture being inseparable, and the Culture being superior. That is the same "don't say the ipso facto part" that white supremacy uses to whitewash its bigotry too: "It's not 'white nationalism, it's Christian nationalism, but not like, all Christians, just the white ones, but it's totally definitely not white nationalism!" I think it's instructive that all 3 superpowers of the 20th and 21st centuries (and certainly most that I can think of historically) have a history of racial supremacy and nationalism, and engaging in genocide. I think you don't do the stuff that gets you to be a superpower without it. Hence, why I assert that ALL superpowers are immoral. The only purpose in trying to argue for a hierarchy between them is to lessen the impermissibility of one. They are impermissible, period.
ang_cire 8mo ago
I don't see anyone arguing that we'd be better off with China, but I am arguing that neither the US or China can be trusted with this, so the author positing "US AI dominance good to keep China at bay" is bad.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > the author positing "US AI dominance good to keep China at bay" is bad My read is they’re saying we need an alternative to Chinese AI. Because with its industrial might, the default future is Chinese technological dominance.
- pcthrowaway 8mo ago
  People are certainly arguing this, and it's something I've come to believe as well.
- margalabargala 8mo ago
  You quoted the article: > The whole background of this AI conversation is that we’re in a race with China, and we have to win. But what is the reason we want America to win the AI race? Right now there are two contenders for first in the AI race. The US, and China. You spent the rest of your comment making the case that it is not good for the US to win. Implying, though not directly saying, we would be better off with China. You can say "oh wouldn't it be nice if Europe won instead" but they don't have anything in the race right now. We're stuck with the US or China.
  - ang_cire 8mo ago
    > You spent the rest of your comment making the case that it is not good for the US to win. Implying, though not directly saying, we would be better off with China. This is you putting words in my mouth. It's bad if either wins. You seem to be operating under an unspoken personal belief that an AI race "win" inevitably spills out into global dominance. I don't know that it won't, but you likewise don't know that it will, and I'm not beholden to debate things from your chosen premise. I think AI will be bad for whoever is being targeted by it's controllers, but I don't think it will intrinsically disrupt the military spheres that exist now as a result of nuclear weaponry. China will use its AI to hurt the people it's hurting now. The US will use its AI to hurt the people it's hurting now. Imho, the idea of an AI arms race "winner" is just the new face of the securitization rhetoric that we used to justify our military excursionism during the Cold War.

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago

> it's "China hasn't done it...yet.” China invaded and annexed Tibet in 1959. To the degree we had a classical definition of intent-based genocide, Beijing continues to commit it in Tibet and Xinjiang. America’s conscious is stained. But it’s downright nonsense to go off about surveillance when the comparison is China.

lovich 8mo ago
I’m surveilled across pretty much every aspect of my life between basic Snowden level scooping of my data and public tracking like flock cameras. Democracy is increasingly becoming a joke as the richest in our society explicitly are trying to break it and we look more and more like mid 90s Russia. I want the US to win because I live in the US and it will probably benefit me, but we’ve largely stopped pretending to value the republic so I don’t think we can claim a moral standing on these topics anymore. To reference your other comment, the common American man has as much de facto ability to sue our government and/or leaders as the common Chinese man
ang_cire 8mo ago
1800 people detained at "alligator Alcatraz" had their records purged from ICE databases, and are completely unaccounted for. Literally disappeared, and the only people whose word we have they're alive are the same people who disappeared them. Yes, the Uyghur genocide and paramilitary suppression and settler-colonialism of Tibet and Xinjiang is horrific, and will (hopefully) be recognized in the future as a genocide on par with others that 'enjoy' historical notoriety, but let's not pretend we're not well on our way to doing that here. The rhetoric of ethnic superiority and nationalism and birthright that exists in our government is the exact same rhetoric that exists in Xi Jinping's "Imperial Han" nationalism.
- scarecrowbob 8mo ago
  I dunno, personally I think it's actively worse; for instance I've read enough WEB DuBois and similar to know that chattel slavery didn't end because of some "goodness" in the part of the government which still is ruling us. The same government that helped murder 2M folks in Iraq. The same gov that paid death squads to kill nuns in El Salvador. At least China isn't in a position to have to reckon with how deep white supremacy runs in its culture. In fact, when I hear folks from the US talk about china without understanding their own history of racism and genocide and how that shit is still going on, all I can conclude is that they are operating under the same racist delusions that have historically brought the US to do such horrific things to the world.
  - ang_cire 7mo ago
    > At least China isn't in a position to have to reckon with how deep white supremacy runs in its culture. Han Nationalism is rooted in racial supremacy. It's explicitly been pushed as the People and the Culture being inseparable, and the Culture being superior. That is the same "don't say the ipso facto part" that white supremacy uses to whitewash its bigotry too: "It's not 'white nationalism, it's Christian nationalism, but not like, all Christians, just the white ones, but it's totally definitely not white nationalism!" I think it's instructive that all 3 superpowers of the 20th and 21st centuries (and certainly most that I can think of historically) have a history of racial supremacy and nationalism, and engaging in genocide. I think you don't do the stuff that gets you to be a superpower without it. Hence, why I assert that ALL superpowers are immoral. The only purpose in trying to argue for a hierarchy between them is to lessen the impermissibility of one. They are impermissible, period.

ang_cire 8mo ago

I don't see anyone arguing that we'd be better off with China, but I am arguing that neither the US or China can be trusted with this, so the author positing "US AI dominance good to keep China at bay" is bad.

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
> the author positing "US AI dominance good to keep China at bay" is bad My read is they’re saying we need an alternative to Chinese AI. Because with its industrial might, the default future is Chinese technological dominance.
pcthrowaway 8mo ago
People are certainly arguing this, and it's something I've come to believe as well.
margalabargala 8mo ago
You quoted the article: > The whole background of this AI conversation is that we’re in a race with China, and we have to win. But what is the reason we want America to win the AI race? Right now there are two contenders for first in the AI race. The US, and China. You spent the rest of your comment making the case that it is not good for the US to win. Implying, though not directly saying, we would be better off with China. You can say "oh wouldn't it be nice if Europe won instead" but they don't have anything in the race right now. We're stuck with the US or China.
- ang_cire 8mo ago
  > You spent the rest of your comment making the case that it is not good for the US to win. Implying, though not directly saying, we would be better off with China. This is you putting words in my mouth. It's bad if either wins. You seem to be operating under an unspoken personal belief that an AI race "win" inevitably spills out into global dominance. I don't know that it won't, but you likewise don't know that it will, and I'm not beholden to debate things from your chosen premise. I think AI will be bad for whoever is being targeted by it's controllers, but I don't think it will intrinsically disrupt the military spheres that exist now as a result of nuclear weaponry. China will use its AI to hurt the people it's hurting now. The US will use its AI to hurt the people it's hurting now. Imho, the idea of an AI arms race "winner" is just the new face of the securitization rhetoric that we used to justify our military excursionism during the Cold War.