Cooperation for AI safety must transcend geopolitical interference

post by Matrice Jacobine · 2025-02-16T18:18:01.539Z · LW · GW · 6 comments

This 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.

Replies from: Matrice Jacobine
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?