Cooperation for AI safety must transcend geopolitical interference
post by Matrice Jacobine · 2025-02-16T18:18:01.539Z · LW · GW · 6 commentsThis is a link post for https://www.scmp.com/opinion/china-opinion/article/3298281/cooperation-ai-safety-must-transcend-geopolitical-interference
Contents
6 comments
6 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by Richard_Kennaway · 2025-02-16T21:58:50.717Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Why does the linked article merit our attention?
-
It does not contain anything to justify the quote, which is the article's sub-headline. Journalists typically do not write their own headlines, but there is a near quote of the sub-headline in the body of the article. It is not elaborated on by the text around it.
-
It is written by a Chinese former politician in a Chinese-owned newspaper.
-
Whether or not LLMs contributed to the content, it is just as foggy and platitudinous as if one had written the entire thing. It expresses nothing but warm, content-free fuzziness towards the Chinese government in the context of AI.
↑ comment by Matrice Jacobine · 2025-02-16T22:07:30.357Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Why does the linked article merit our attention?
- It is written by a Chinese former politician in a Chinese-owned newspaper.
?
Replies from: Richard_Kennaway↑ comment by Richard_Kennaway · 2025-02-17T16:22:33.237Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
It is written by a Chinese former politician in a Chinese-owned newspaper.
?
It is written by a Chinese former politician in a Chinese-owned newspaper.
Replies from: Matrice Jacobine↑ comment by Matrice Jacobine · 2025-02-17T18:19:38.113Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
So that answer your question "Why does the linked article merit our attention?" right?
Replies from: Richard_Kennaway↑ comment by Richard_Kennaway · 2025-02-17T22:22:34.667Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
No. Nothing but soft CCP-approved platitudes can be expected from such a person writing in such a venue. That is her job. China matters, but not everything that it says matters, unless to Pekingologists minutely examining the tea-leaves for insight into whatever is really going on in China.
What about my other two points?
Replies from: Matrice Jacobine↑ comment by Matrice Jacobine · 2025-02-18T02:48:38.918Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
... I don't agree, but would it at least be relevant that the "soft CCP-approved platitudes" are now AI-safetyist?