Hmm, apologies if this mostly based on vibes. My read of this is that this is not strong evidence either way. I think that of the excerpt, there are two bits of potentially important info:
Listing AI alongside biohazards and natural disasters. This means that the CCP does not care about and will not act strongly on any of these risks.
Very roughly, CCP documents (maybe those of other govs are similar, idk) contain several types of bits^: central bits (that signal whatever party central is thinking about), performative bits (for historical narrative coherence and to use as talking points), and truism bits (to use as talking points to later provide evidence that they have, indeed, thought about this). One great utility of including these otherwise useless bits is so that the key bits get increasingly hard to identify and parse, ensuring that an expert can correctly identify them. The latter two are not meant to be taken seriously by exprts.
My reading is that none of the considerable signalling towards AI (and bio) safety have been seriously intended, that they’ve been a mixture of performative and truisms.
The “abondon uninhibited growth that comes at hte cost of sacrificing safety” quote. This sounds like a standard Xi economics/national security talking point*. Two cases:
If the study guide itself is not AI-specific, then it seems likely that the quote is about economics. In which case, wow journalism.
If the study guide itself is AI-specific, or if the quote is strictly about AI, this is indeed some evidence towards the fact that the only thing they care about is not capabilities. But:
We already know this. Our prior on what the CCP considers safety ought to be that the LLM will voice correct (TM) opinions.
This seems again like a truism/performative bit.
^Not exhaustive or indeed very considered. Probably doesn’t totally cleave reality at the joints
*Since Deng, the CCP has had a mission statement of something like “taking economic development as the primary focus”. In his third term (or earlier?), Xi had redefined this to something like “taking economic development and national security as dual focii”. Coupled with the economic story in the past decade, most people seem to think that this means there will be no economic development.
I’m a bit confused. The Economist article seems to partially contradict your analysis here:
More clues to Mr Xi’s thinking come from the study guide prepared for party cadres, which he is said to have personally edited. China should “abandon uninhibited growth that comes at the cost of sacrificing safety”, says the guide. Since AI will determine “the fate of all mankind”, it must always be controllable, it goes on. The document calls for regulation to be pre-emptive rather than reactive[...]
Thanks for that. The “the fate of all mankind” line really throws me. without this line, everything I said above applies. Its existence (assuming that it exists, specificly refers to AI, and Xi really means it) is some evidence towards him thinking that it’s important. I guess it just doesn’t square with the intuitions I’ve built for him as someone not particularly bright or sophisiticated. Being convinced by good arguments does not seem to be one of his strong suits.
Edit: forgot to mention that I tried and failed to find the text of the guide itself.
Hmm, apologies if this mostly based on vibes. My read of this is that this is not strong evidence either way. I think that of the excerpt, there are two bits of potentially important info:
Listing AI alongside biohazards and natural disasters. This means that the CCP does not care about and will not act strongly on any of these risks.
Very roughly, CCP documents (maybe those of other govs are similar, idk) contain several types of bits^: central bits (that signal whatever party central is thinking about), performative bits (for historical narrative coherence and to use as talking points), and truism bits (to use as talking points to later provide evidence that they have, indeed, thought about this). One great utility of including these otherwise useless bits is so that the key bits get increasingly hard to identify and parse, ensuring that an expert can correctly identify them. The latter two are not meant to be taken seriously by exprts.
My reading is that none of the considerable signalling towards AI (and bio) safety have been seriously intended, that they’ve been a mixture of performative and truisms.
The “abondon uninhibited growth that comes at hte cost of sacrificing safety” quote. This sounds like a standard Xi economics/national security talking point*. Two cases:
If the study guide itself is not AI-specific, then it seems likely that the quote is about economics. In which case, wow journalism.
If the study guide itself is AI-specific, or if the quote is strictly about AI, this is indeed some evidence towards the fact that the only thing they care about is not capabilities. But:
We already know this. Our prior on what the CCP considers safety ought to be that the LLM will voice correct (TM) opinions.
This seems again like a truism/performative bit.
^Not exhaustive or indeed very considered. Probably doesn’t totally cleave reality at the joints
*Since Deng, the CCP has had a mission statement of something like “taking economic development as the primary focus”. In his third term (or earlier?), Xi had redefined this to something like “taking economic development and national security as dual focii”. Coupled with the economic story in the past decade, most people seem to think that this means there will be no economic development.
I’m a bit confused. The Economist article seems to partially contradict your analysis here:
Thanks for that. The “the fate of all mankind” line really throws me. without this line, everything I said above applies. Its existence (assuming that it exists, specificly refers to AI, and Xi really means it) is some evidence towards him thinking that it’s important. I guess it just doesn’t square with the intuitions I’ve built for him as someone not particularly bright or sophisiticated. Being convinced by good arguments does not seem to be one of his strong suits.
Edit: forgot to mention that I tried and failed to find the text of the guide itself.