Do you have a source for that? The NYT article does not quote Xi making that statement, and I can't find a source for that. In fact, Xi delivered veiled criticism of the security posturing the US has done:

> We should put in place laws and regulations, technological monitoring, early warning and emergency response systems in order to strengthen the line of security, prevent abuses and malicious use, and ensure that AI is always under human control. In the meantime, we should jointly oppose overstretching the national security concept in the field of AI and placing one country’s security over that of others.

There was a blog post by a state-linked broadcaster cited in the NYT piece:

> “China supports openness, but this does not mean it advocates for the unconditional proliferation of all capabilities,” the blog said.

The article also quoted an American journalist:

> “If these models do reach those dangerous capabilities, they are not going to let it be a free-for-all in terms of releasing them," Mr. Sheehan said.

But a distinction has to be drawn between real dangers (which many people believe LLMs have not actually shown, to date) versus "dangers" hyped up marketing purposes or domestic regulatory-capture motives. Presumably the Chinese government is less interested in the latter.

▲

applicative 6 hours ago | parent [-]

"Dangers" may indeed be hyped up for marketing purposes or domestic regulatory-capture motives. But as Xi stated, they will become real.

It is just a question of being unaffected by the motives of the speakers, which is what adults learn to do.

▲

brazukadev 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

replying the request for sources with "as xi stated" without bringing the sources again is quite misleading. It seems you have nothing to back what you are saying.

	▲	applicative an hour ago \| parent [-]
		"google is your friend" The person I am replying to actually believes that Xi actually spoke of "open weights", for example. This is the AI information space we live in.

▲

anon373839 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> But as Xi stated, they will become real.

But the speech doesn't say that? I'm looking at the full text. For example:

> We should take seriously the various types of inherent and secondary risks that AI may trigger.

The risk portion of the speech is focused more on application-level risks than model capabilities. Which is a much more sensible regulatory framing than what Silicon Valley has proposed.

	▲	applicative an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The claim that the speech was somehow supporting open weights was pure Western imposition. China does not support open weights generally, and Xi makes plain that some systems of weights - perhaps still future - would have inherent risks, same as Amodei says of Mythos, whether or not he is bull_ing about it.