> An autocracy has more power and influence to direct its resources in a single direction much more efficiently than any democratic government.
Fortunately, because it’s an autocracy, there is no way to know if it is the right direction, until it fails.
I worded that wrongly, but what I meant is that the current concerns with AI and discussions to pause AI development are entirely happening in Western countries. China will regulate its companies to comply with the goals of the CCP, but they don't have the same ethical and moral concerns as the West.
> Fortunately, because it’s an autocracy, there is no way to know if it is the right direction, until it fails.
They can also afford to fail fast. It's the "move fast and break things" approach to government. :)
There are yes. Environmental regulations that impact hardware. Personal information, privacy regulations that impact the training data. Business regulations that impact what businesses and business owners can do with labor, financial reporting, etc… We also have a fourth estate so if people like Yudkowksi get enough traction in the media the government will be force to act. That is worse than regulation by government, it’s regulation by the whim of the media owners.
These are not AI regulation per se, but they are de facto restrictions that aren’t present to the same degree in communist China.
Regarding the topic at hand: that’s plausible. I wouldn’t describe the west as “scrambling to limit AI development” though, more “establishing conventions and rules and accountability and and and”. I guess that might slow down research, but I don’t see it as that simplistic, like a blue bar ticking up in Civ; AI will need some major paradigm shifts before it gets really crazy, and I think a healthier and more sustainable field helps that rather than hindering it.
Plus there’s the fact that “the west” (kinda hate these terms tbh) has ~66% of all CS research - https://m-cacm.acm.org/magazines/2022/4/259407-trends-in-com...
> I wouldn’t describe the west as “scrambling to limit AI development” though, more “establishing conventions and rules and accountability and and and”.
Well, the discussions here are about pausing AI development. There's a growing public concern about its capabilities, and democratic governments must, in theory, abide to its citizens. An autocratic government can impose its will on the people, and even though China has passed AI regulation recently[1], it ultimately must serve the goals of the CCP. The Chinese government has much more power to direct its resources in ensuring it ends up on top in this race, while Western countries will be bogged down by bureaucracy, red tape, and more stringent regulation. Not to mention that the CCP doesn't share the same moral and ethical concerns. So any current lead the West has at the moment, will not remain so in a few years.
But this is entirely an opinion from a layperson, and I have no expertise in the matter. Cheers for the civil discussion!
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/technology/china-releases-draft-meas...
But since we're all speculating here, if I had to place my money on who will come out on top with AI, it would be the East. And by East, I specifically mean China.
While the West is scrambling to limit the pace of AI development, no such regulation exists in China. There have certainly been regulations to limit the power of Chinese companies in the past few years, but ultimately the shot caller is the CCP. An autocracy has more power and influence to direct its resources in a single direction much more efficiently than any democratic government.
Then there's the manufacturing side. The West does still control the most advanced chip fabrication technologies, but China is quickly ramping up development with results that rival those of TSMC/ASML[1]. If any country can be self-sufficient with chip fabrication, it's China. There's only so much harm US sanctions can do to a self-sufficient country.
[1]: https://thediplomat.com/2022/08/chinas-semiconductor-breakth...