I’d like to be convinced that I’m wrong, but I just watched a Kling AI video of Justin Timberlake drinking soda and it was pretty real looking. This plus Voice delay from OpenAI plus Yi-Large in top 10 on the LMSYS leader board after company has only existed 1 year plus just the general vibe has me really convinced that:
There is no moat. Chinese labs are now at peer level to Western AI labs. I mean, maybe they don’t have big text context lengths yet and maybe they have fewer GPUs, but Zvi, gwern and other’s insistance about not needing to worry—they don’t have the secret sauce yet—is, to put it politely, absolute nonsense. All the secrets have already leaked out. Only a month ago I was told that SORA like video was out of reach. Now we see, anyone can do it. Everyone and their mother is popping out video generation tools. The food eating videos from KLing should give everyone pause.
Predictions:
(Item removed. Realized that paper I was refering to would affect inference time compute, not training compute.)
By years end, some Chinese-made LLM will be atop the LMSYS leaderboard. (60%)
Beyond Sora text-to-video and image-to-video generation wide-released to general Chinese public by end of year (80%). Capable of generating multiple minutes of video. (70%, given the first statement). Generation times less than half that of Sora. (80%) Compute less than half that of Sora. (90%)
Chips of similar quality to ones produced by TSMC or Samsung will be produced by a Chinese firm within 2 years (50%). This will be accomplished by using a new lithographic process to sidestep the need for embargoed advanced etching machines or by reverse engineering one of the latest etching machines (smuggling it from Korea or Japan) (80%, given the first statement is true)
Advanced inexpensive Chinese personal robots will overwhelm the western markets, destroying current western robotics industry in the same way that the West’s small kitchen appliance industry was utterly crushed. (70%) Data from these robots will make its way to CCP (90%, given the first statement is true)
What does this mean: the West is caught backfoot again. Despite creating the technology, China, by sheer size and directed investment, is poised to crush the West in AI. We saw this same story with electric cars, solar panels, robotics. Fast copy (or steal) and then quickly iterate and scale is extremely effective and there is no easy way to combat it. Market asymmetries mean that Chinese firms always have a large market without competitors while Western markets are bombarded with cheap alternatives to domestic brands.
If these were Japanese firms in the 1980s or Korean firm in the 2000s, we could sit back and relax. Sure, they may be ahead, but they are friendly and so we can reap the benefits. That is not the case here, especially with the possibility of AGI. Chinese firms in the 2020s, funded and controlled by CCP and subject to civil-military fusion laws, the tech is likely already being deployed in weapon systems, propaganda tools, etc. If LLMs scale to AGI and the Chinese get it first, the West is cooked in a scary existential way, over and above the general danger of AGI.
Why? Observe the flood of fentanyl precursors streaming from Chinese ports to Mexico. This could be stopped, but is permitted because it serves the CCP’s ends. Observe the Chinese chips making their way into Russian weapon systems. This could be stopped, but it serves the CCP’s ends that its vassal Russia crush western advancement. Now imagine the same entity had AGI. This is not to say that the West has a good track record—Iran-Contra, Iraq, Afghanistan, arms to rogue regimes, propping up South American despots, turning a blind eye to South African apartheid for decades, etc. But the various checks and balances in the West often mean that there is a meaningful way to change such policies, especially ones that look calculated to disempower and subordinate. An AGI China is scary as fuck. Unchecked power. The CCP already has millions of people in work camps and promotes re-education (ethnic cleansing) in “wayward” provinces. Extrapolate a little.
Again, I am eager to be convinced I am wrong. I hate to beat this same drum over and over.
Papers like the one involving elimination of matrix-multiplication suggest that there is no need for warehouses full of GPUs to train advanced AI systems.
The paper is about getting rid of multiplication in inference, not in training (specifically, in focuses on attention rather than MLP). Quantization aware training creates models with extreme levels of quantization that are not much worse than full precision models (this is currently impossible to do post-training, if training itself wasn’t built around targeting this outcome). The important recent result is ternary quantization where weights in MLP become {-1, 0, 1}, and thus multiplication by such a matrix no longer needs multiplication by weights. So this is relevant for making inference cheaper or running models locally.
There seems to be a huge jump from: there’s no moat around generative AI (makes sense as how to make one is publicly known, and the secret sauce is just about improving performance) to… all the other stuff which seems completely unrelated?
I acknowledge this. My thinking is a bit scattered and my posts are often just an attempt to articulate publically somewhere intuitions that I have no outlet elsewhere to discuss and refine.
I’m saying first off, there is no moat. Yet I observe people on this and similar forums with the usual refrain: but look, the West is so far ahead in doing X in AI, so we shouldn’t use China as a boogie man when discussing AI policy. I claim this is bogus. The West isn’t far ahead in X because everything can be fast copied, stolen, brute forced and limits on hardware, etc. appear ineffective. Lots of the arguments in favor of disregarding China in setting AI safety policy assume it being perpetually a few steps behind. But if they are getting similar performance, then they aren’t behind.
So if there is no moat, and we can expect peer performance soon, then we should be worried because we have reason to believe that if scaling + tweaks can reach AGI, then China might conceivably get AGI first, which would be very bad. I have seen replies to this point of: well, how do you know it would be that much worse? Surely Xi wants human flourishing as well. And my response is: governments do terrible things. At least in the West, the public can see these terrible things and sometimes say, hey: I object. This is bad. The PRC has no mechanism. So AGI would be dangerous in their hands in a way that it might not be...at least initially, in the West...and the PRC is starting from a not so pro-flourishing position (Uighur slavery and genocide, pro-Putinism, invade Taiwan fever, debt trap diplomacy, secret police abroad, etc.).
If you think AGI kills everyone anyway, then this doesn’t matter. If you think AGI just makes the group possessing it really powerful and able to disempower or destroy competitors, then this REALLY matters, and policies designed to hinder Western AI development could mean Western disempowerment, subjugation, etc.
I make no guarantees about the coherence of this argument and welcome critiques. Personally, I hope to be wrong.
I would be willing to bet maybe $100 on the video prediction one. Kling is already in beta. As soon as it is released to the general public, that is satisfied. The only uncertainty is whether Chinese authorities crack down on such services for insufficient censorship of requests.
Advanced inexpensive Chinese personal robots will overwhelm the western markets, destroying current western robotics industry in the same way that the West’s small kitchen appliance industry was utterly crushed. (70%) Data from these robots will make its way to CCP (90%, given the first statement is true)
By what time period are you imagining this happening by?
If there’s a similar work culture in AI innovation, that doesn’t sound optimal for developing something faster than the U.S. when “outside the LLM” thinking might ultimately be needed to develop AGI.
Also, Xi has recently called for more innovation in AI and other tech sectors:
destroying current western robotics industry in the same way that the West’s small kitchen appliance industry was utterly crushed. (70%)
I’ve heard that the US is already ahead on advanced — IE, fully automated — manufacturing. China’s manufacturing economy depends on cheap human labor, which is an advantage they seem to be losing for some reason. I don’t see much of a reason to think there’s going to be a continuity between Chinese dominance in the pre-robotics manufacturing era and the next manufacturing era.
Papers like the one involving elimination of matrix-multiplication suggest that there is no need for warehouses full of GPUs to train advanced AI systems. Sudden collapse of Nvidia. (60%)
I’d like to be convinced that I’m wrong, but I just watched a Kling AI video of Justin Timberlake drinking soda and it was pretty real looking. This plus Voice delay from OpenAI plus Yi-Large in top 10 on the LMSYS leader board after company has only existed 1 year plus just the general vibe has me really convinced that:
There is no moat. Chinese labs are now at peer level to Western AI labs. I mean, maybe they don’t have big text context lengths yet and maybe they have fewer GPUs, but Zvi, gwern and other’s insistance about not needing to worry—they don’t have the secret sauce yet—is, to put it politely, absolute nonsense. All the secrets have already leaked out. Only a month ago I was told that SORA like video was out of reach. Now we see, anyone can do it. Everyone and their mother is popping out video generation tools. The food eating videos from KLing should give everyone pause.
Predictions:
(Item removed. Realized that paper I was refering to would affect inference time compute, not training compute.)
By years end, some Chinese-made LLM will be atop the LMSYS leaderboard. (60%)
Beyond Sora text-to-video and image-to-video generation wide-released to general Chinese public by end of year (80%). Capable of generating multiple minutes of video. (70%, given the first statement). Generation times less than half that of Sora. (80%) Compute less than half that of Sora. (90%)
Chips of similar quality to ones produced by TSMC or Samsung will be produced by a Chinese firm within 2 years (50%). This will be accomplished by using a new lithographic process to sidestep the need for embargoed advanced etching machines or by reverse engineering one of the latest etching machines (smuggling it from Korea or Japan) (80%, given the first statement is true)
Advanced inexpensive Chinese personal robots will overwhelm the western markets, destroying current western robotics industry in the same way that the West’s small kitchen appliance industry was utterly crushed. (70%) Data from these robots will make its way to CCP (90%, given the first statement is true)
What does this mean: the West is caught backfoot again. Despite creating the technology, China, by sheer size and directed investment, is poised to crush the West in AI. We saw this same story with electric cars, solar panels, robotics. Fast copy (or steal) and then quickly iterate and scale is extremely effective and there is no easy way to combat it. Market asymmetries mean that Chinese firms always have a large market without competitors while Western markets are bombarded with cheap alternatives to domestic brands.
If these were Japanese firms in the 1980s or Korean firm in the 2000s, we could sit back and relax. Sure, they may be ahead, but they are friendly and so we can reap the benefits. That is not the case here, especially with the possibility of AGI. Chinese firms in the 2020s, funded and controlled by CCP and subject to civil-military fusion laws, the tech is likely already being deployed in weapon systems, propaganda tools, etc. If LLMs scale to AGI and the Chinese get it first, the West is cooked in a scary existential way, over and above the general danger of AGI.
Why? Observe the flood of fentanyl precursors streaming from Chinese ports to Mexico. This could be stopped, but is permitted because it serves the CCP’s ends. Observe the Chinese chips making their way into Russian weapon systems. This could be stopped, but it serves the CCP’s ends that its vassal Russia crush western advancement. Now imagine the same entity had AGI. This is not to say that the West has a good track record—Iran-Contra, Iraq, Afghanistan, arms to rogue regimes, propping up South American despots, turning a blind eye to South African apartheid for decades, etc. But the various checks and balances in the West often mean that there is a meaningful way to change such policies, especially ones that look calculated to disempower and subordinate. An AGI China is scary as fuck. Unchecked power. The CCP already has millions of people in work camps and promotes re-education (ethnic cleansing) in “wayward” provinces. Extrapolate a little.
Again, I am eager to be convinced I am wrong. I hate to beat this same drum over and over.
The paper is about getting rid of multiplication in inference, not in training (specifically, in focuses on attention rather than MLP). Quantization aware training creates models with extreme levels of quantization that are not much worse than full precision models (this is currently impossible to do post-training, if training itself wasn’t built around targeting this outcome). The important recent result is ternary quantization where weights in MLP become {-1, 0, 1}, and thus multiplication by such a matrix no longer needs multiplication by weights. So this is relevant for making inference cheaper or running models locally.
Good point.
There seems to be a huge jump from: there’s no moat around generative AI (makes sense as how to make one is publicly known, and the secret sauce is just about improving performance) to… all the other stuff which seems completely unrelated?
I acknowledge this. My thinking is a bit scattered and my posts are often just an attempt to articulate publically somewhere intuitions that I have no outlet elsewhere to discuss and refine.
I’m saying first off, there is no moat. Yet I observe people on this and similar forums with the usual refrain: but look, the West is so far ahead in doing X in AI, so we shouldn’t use China as a boogie man when discussing AI policy. I claim this is bogus. The West isn’t far ahead in X because everything can be fast copied, stolen, brute forced and limits on hardware, etc. appear ineffective. Lots of the arguments in favor of disregarding China in setting AI safety policy assume it being perpetually a few steps behind. But if they are getting similar performance, then they aren’t behind.
So if there is no moat, and we can expect peer performance soon, then we should be worried because we have reason to believe that if scaling + tweaks can reach AGI, then China might conceivably get AGI first, which would be very bad. I have seen replies to this point of: well, how do you know it would be that much worse? Surely Xi wants human flourishing as well. And my response is: governments do terrible things. At least in the West, the public can see these terrible things and sometimes say, hey: I object. This is bad. The PRC has no mechanism. So AGI would be dangerous in their hands in a way that it might not be...at least initially, in the West...and the PRC is starting from a not so pro-flourishing position (Uighur slavery and genocide, pro-Putinism, invade Taiwan fever, debt trap diplomacy, secret police abroad, etc.).
If you think AGI kills everyone anyway, then this doesn’t matter. If you think AGI just makes the group possessing it really powerful and able to disempower or destroy competitors, then this REALLY matters, and policies designed to hinder Western AI development could mean Western disempowerment, subjugation, etc.
I make no guarantees about the coherence of this argument and welcome critiques. Personally, I hope to be wrong.
Are you willing to bet on any of these predictions?
I find counterarguments more convincing than to challenge people to bet.
I would be willing to bet maybe $100 on the video prediction one. Kling is already in beta. As soon as it is released to the general public, that is satisfied. The only uncertainty is whether Chinese authorities crack down on such services for insufficient censorship of requests.
By what time period are you imagining this happening by?
This article on work culture in China might be relevant: https://www.businessinsider.com/china-work-culture-differences-west-2024-6
If there’s a similar work culture in AI innovation, that doesn’t sound optimal for developing something faster than the U.S. when “outside the LLM” thinking might ultimately be needed to develop AGI.
Also, Xi has recently called for more innovation in AI and other tech sectors:
https://www.msn.com/en-ie/money/other/xi-jinping-admits-china-is-relatively-weak-on-innovation-and-needs-more-talent-to-dominate-the-tech-battlefield/ar-BB1oUuk1
I’ve heard that the US is already ahead on advanced — IE, fully automated — manufacturing. China’s manufacturing economy depends on cheap human labor, which is an advantage they seem to be losing for some reason. I don’t see much of a reason to think there’s going to be a continuity between Chinese dominance in the pre-robotics manufacturing era and the next manufacturing era.
I assume you’re shorting Nvidia then, right?
What does “atop” mean here? Ranked in top 3 or top 20 or what?