The vast majority of the claims I have seen as to the probable eclipsing of the US by China either makes no argument in support of the claim or the included argument is very unimpressive.
The main argument for increased strength is that China manages to keep a high growth rate. Last year they managed to get back to 8 percent. Increased money also means increased foreign investments and thus more ways to project power.
And maybe Russia will continue its decline with the result that regardless of the wishes and the ambitions of its government, it becomes unable to contribute significantly to the AI danger (which of course its government does not perceive as particularly dangerous).
The whole rationality community in Sanct Petersburg left Russia. Between braindrain, embargos to import chips, and corrupt corporate governance I don’t expect Russia to be able to do much in the field of AI.
I would expect more risk from a country like Argentina that currently leads in zero-day exploit generation than from Russia.
During the Cold War, no one believed the economic figures published by the Soviet Union. I am puzzled as to why the figures published by the Chinese Communist party are often taken at face value now. Yes, I concede that the average Chinese resident really is wealthier than the average resident of India. But I don’t necessarily believe the GDP figures that say he or she is wealthier than the average Mexican, just to pick a country for the sake of illustration that according to the World Bank has a GDP per capita a little lower than China’s. And I’m much less certain than “the internet” that the average Chinese person will ever be wealthier than the average Mexican since Mexico is much less likely to descend into political chaos than China is and since Mexico has significant petroleum reserves and access to cheap Texan natural gas.
The main argument for the potential of China IMO is the staggering number of people with IQs over 130, many of whom have degrees in science or engineering. But whereas scientific and engineering knowledge transfer fairly easily to any sufficiently bright population anywhere in the world, the ability to organize a society such that the scientists and engineers can contribute to societal goals is not so easy, and Russia is a good example of this because although Russia certainly can produce great scientists (just restricting ourselves to the 20th Century, we find Solomonoff, Kolmogorov and Grigori Perelman) the society is lacking in many ways (e.g., the quality of life of the average person is low; e.g., even if you’re wealthy, the chances of your being treated unjustly by the government or the justice system is much higher than it is in many countries; e.g., Russia does not contribute to the flourishing of the world anywhere near as much as the West does).
Again, I am not making a prediction about how powerful China will be 10 or 20 years from now; I’m merely saying that I’m much less certain that it will continue to grow in capability than the average internet commentator is.
Absolute GDP values aren’t very trustworthy just like the absolute COVID numbers that China publishes are not trustworthy. On the other hand, it’s hard to fake exponential growth over longer timeframes.
But whereas scientific and engineering knowledge transfer fairly easily to any sufficiently bright population anywhere in the world, the ability to organize a society such that the scientists and engineers can contribute to societal goals is not so easy, and Russia is a good example
Russia mainly exports resources and not technology. They indeed didn’t manage to organize their society in a way that allows engineers to contribute effectively.
China is different. They manage to export a lot of technology. They are the most efficient producer of solar cells.
If we look at their domestic market, they build better trains than the West. They have better digital payment.
Baidu just won a license to start offering fully autonomous robotaxis in some test cities. I think it’s plausible that China is better than the West in transferring engineering knowledge to products because their government is more willing to get regulatory barriers out of the way than Western governments are.
China also has a good startup culture with lots of Unicorns.
The main argument for increased strength is that China manages to keep a high growth rate. Last year they managed to get back to 8 percent. Increased money also means increased foreign investments and thus more ways to project power.
The whole rationality community in Sanct Petersburg left Russia. Between braindrain, embargos to import chips, and corrupt corporate governance I don’t expect Russia to be able to do much in the field of AI.
I would expect more risk from a country like Argentina that currently leads in zero-day exploit generation than from Russia.
During the Cold War, no one believed the economic figures published by the Soviet Union. I am puzzled as to why the figures published by the Chinese Communist party are often taken at face value now. Yes, I concede that the average Chinese resident really is wealthier than the average resident of India. But I don’t necessarily believe the GDP figures that say he or she is wealthier than the average Mexican, just to pick a country for the sake of illustration that according to the World Bank has a GDP per capita a little lower than China’s. And I’m much less certain than “the internet” that the average Chinese person will ever be wealthier than the average Mexican since Mexico is much less likely to descend into political chaos than China is and since Mexico has significant petroleum reserves and access to cheap Texan natural gas.
The main argument for the potential of China IMO is the staggering number of people with IQs over 130, many of whom have degrees in science or engineering. But whereas scientific and engineering knowledge transfer fairly easily to any sufficiently bright population anywhere in the world, the ability to organize a society such that the scientists and engineers can contribute to societal goals is not so easy, and Russia is a good example of this because although Russia certainly can produce great scientists (just restricting ourselves to the 20th Century, we find Solomonoff, Kolmogorov and Grigori Perelman) the society is lacking in many ways (e.g., the quality of life of the average person is low; e.g., even if you’re wealthy, the chances of your being treated unjustly by the government or the justice system is much higher than it is in many countries; e.g., Russia does not contribute to the flourishing of the world anywhere near as much as the West does).
Again, I am not making a prediction about how powerful China will be 10 or 20 years from now; I’m merely saying that I’m much less certain that it will continue to grow in capability than the average internet commentator is.
You might be interested in this study: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/09/29/a-study-of-lights-at-night-suggests-dictators-lie-about-economic-growth (based on https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jpolec/doi10.1086-720458.html).
Absolute GDP values aren’t very trustworthy just like the absolute COVID numbers that China publishes are not trustworthy. On the other hand, it’s hard to fake exponential growth over longer timeframes.
Russia mainly exports resources and not technology. They indeed didn’t manage to organize their society in a way that allows engineers to contribute effectively.
China is different. They manage to export a lot of technology. They are the most efficient producer of solar cells.
If we look at their domestic market, they build better trains than the West. They have better digital payment.
Baidu just won a license to start offering fully autonomous robotaxis in some test cities. I think it’s plausible that China is better than the West in transferring engineering knowledge to products because their government is more willing to get regulatory barriers out of the way than Western governments are.
China also has a good startup culture with lots of Unicorns.