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.

▲

margalabargala 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 14 hours ago | parent [-]

> 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.

	▲	margalabargala 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not putting words in your mouth, and in fact pointed out in my comment you never said this. Read up on what it means to "imply" something. Speaking of putting words in people's mouths: > You seem to be operating under an unspoken personal belief that an AI race "win" inevitably spills out into global dominance. This is the belief of the article we're all commenting on. Intelligent people are able to discuss concepts without endorsing them.

▲

JumpCrisscross 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

People are certainly arguing this, and it's something I've come to believe as well.

▲

kelnos 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I know people IRL that are so fed up with the US's bullshit that they do sometimes look at China and think their dominance might be better for the world. "Well, when's the last time China started a war or even deployed military forces in another country?", they ask... and I don't know how to respond to that (because they haven't, for at least 30 years that I can think of). And saying something like "well, they've been expanding their territory through extralegal means, and use coercion and grey-area tactics to get what they want" feels like an unsatisfying retort.