[KlayLay]

Last time I checked, China's state-owned enterprises aren't all that invested in developing AI chatbots, so I imagine that the amount of control the central government has is about as much as their control over any tech company. If anything, China's AI industry has been described as under-regulated by people like Jensen Huang.

A technology created by a certain set of people will naturally come to reflect the views of said people, even in areas where people act like it's neutral (e.g., cameras that are biased towards people with lighter skin). This is the case for all AI models—Chinese, American, European, etc.—so I wouldn't dub one that censors information they don't like as propaganda just because we like it, since we naturally have our own version of that.

The actual chatbots, themselves, seem to be relatively useful.

[Workaccount2]

China is a communist country, every company is defacto under the states control.

It might not feel like that on the ground, the leash has been getting looser, but the leash is still 100% there.

Don't make the childish mistake of thinking China is just USA 2.0

[Imustaskforhelp]

Agreed, my point was that the leash was there so most likely if the news gets released to the public, it means that they must have definitely used "that leash" a lot privately too so the news might/does have a deeper impact than one might think but it can be hidden.

So like even now although I can trust chinese models, who knows for how long their private discussions have been happening and for how long chinese govt has been using that leash privately and for chatbots like glm 4.7 and similar.

I am not sure why china would actively come out and say they are enforcing tough rules tho, doesn't make much sense for a country who loves being private.

[KlayLay]

Yes, but that's the case for any company under any state. Do you believe that Apple is not under the US government's control just because they're allowed to criticize them?

[Workaccount2]

Apple quite publicly defied the FBI with encryption and won. Tim Cook didn't disappear either.

Now ask Jack Ma about the time he even criticized regulations, much less defied them...

[KlayLay]

Believe it or not, that's the case I was thinking of when I asked, "just because they're allowed to criticize them?" A multi-national corporation like Apple having the freedom to criticize the US government doesn't mean that it has freedom from control, given that it's a US company. If Apple had similar criticisms during a much more critical moment (e.g., a war) or wanted to commit a critical act (e.g., transfer their chip design to be done primarily in China), they could very well find themselves subject to a clause in some vague, national security or espionage act.

Jack Ma was criticizing China's strategy for minimizing risk in its financial system, essentially arguing for more risk that could harm ordinary people to benefit his company, Ant Group. Unlike the US, much of the financial sector in China is state-owned, so it makes sense that they would follow the state's line. The worst that happened to him is that he had to step away from roles in his companies and stay out of public image, which is very different to the image of being disappeared.

Both of their companies are under their respective state's control. The only difference seems to be what you're willing to recognize as control, since I'm much more interested in what happens when push comes to shove.

[Imustaskforhelp]

> Both of their companies are under their respective state's control. The only difference seems to be what you're willing to recognize as control, since I'm much more interested in what happens when push comes to shove.

I can agree with your whole comment except for the fact that we are comparing an if / future statement when push comes to shove for america since although one can predict about national security or espionage act or anything, Nobody can be 100% certain if apple would have to have follow it

Now compare this with China where states own the financial sector and have a share in every company so there is a 100% certainty there that when push comes to shove that china is a more likelier culprit than america

I feel like everything breaks down when push comes to shove though because I feel like Europe which has its flaws is still more stable (most parts of it) in terms of blatant corruption and authoritarianism than the trends displayed by america right now but if push comes to shove, I feel like Europe could have harsher rules than maybe even America considering America's "freedom" sentiment

The question however which I wish to ask is that what are some countries which you think are good if push comes to shove. I suppose switzerland but its gotten too good of a reputation that its become infamous for bad stuff but I am interested what other countries would you list.

[KlayLay]

I wouldn't consider any country in particular to be 'good if push comes to shove,' given that most exist to promote an environment where companies can easily make money. If a state feels like its status may be in jeopardy, it'll do whatever it can to maintain that relationship (e.g., the Dutch government seizing control of Nexperia from its Chinese parent company Wingtech). Consequently, it really doesn't matter whether push comes to shove for the US, China, Europe, etc. since the actions taken will stem from the same root (e.g., the US won't let Intel go bankrupt).

This is part of why I really don't think authoritarianism is relevant to whether or not China will lead in AI. There are much better metrics for this, like the amount of resources poured into research vs. applications, or the kind of research being done (open source, more than just LLMs etc.).

[Workaccount2]

If Trump tells Apple to put his face on everyone's lock screen, Apple laughs and says no. Trump can push but the courts will shoot it down.

If Xi tells Xiaomi to put his face one every xiaomi phone, tomorrow everyone with a xiaomi phone wakes up to Xi.

China is an authoritarian regime, through and through.

America is an authoritarian regime if you just read reddit comments all day.

[KlayLay]

The question is whether or not American companies like Apple are controlled by the US government. Do you genuinely believe that, just because you can go to a court, that you're somehow free of control? Whether or not the state is authoritarian doesn't change that.

You must really have a distorted view on society to believe that companies can be free from their respective governments on the basis of freedom of speech, which is largely a western concept.

[mullingitover]

> and won.

They didn't win, the phone was broken into with the help of a third party (so ultimately Apple actually did give the government a backdoor, unofficially) so the court case was mooted. Apple never actually defied the US legal system.

> Now ask Jack Ma

Ask ABC about their FCC license when they publish speech critical of the regime[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_Jimmy_Kimmel_Liv...!

[Workaccount2]

No, they won. They never put a backdoor in.

Not sure how finding an exploit in software means the company is compliant. Microsoft would be criminally liable for untold damage if that was the case.

Kimmels bosses were kissing the ring. But it's unlikely there was real threat. The courts have been shooting Trumps authoritarian dreams down left and right.

China has no (legitimate) courts.

[Imustaskforhelp]

Apple can still fight against US government if they want. We are taking the example of the largest company in america tho so ofc they might want to take favour from govt so if govt requests them they will do something

But this is because they are an extremely large company but on the other hand, there can be smaller companies in america who can actually be independent yet the same just isn't possible in china.

Also even with things like apple, they don't really unlock computers for the govt.

https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/answers/

So in a way, yeah. Not sure about the current oligarchy / kiss-the-ring type of deal they might have but that seems a problem of america's authoritarianism and not the fault of the democratic model itself

[mullingitover]

> every company is defacto under the states control.

This is kind of a nonsensical statement. Every US company is also de facto under US control, too. They're all subject to US laws. Beyond that, as demonstrated by the recent inauguration, the US oligarchs are demonstrably political pawns who regularly make pilgrimages to the White House to offer token gifts and clap like trained seals.

You can't hold up the US as some kind of beacon of freedom from state control anymore, for the past year all the major industrial leaders have been openly prostrating themselves to the state.

[Workaccount2]

The US has a constitution and courts. Companies win against the government all the time.

China has no such thing. It's just the will of Xi.

[mullingitover]

> The US has a constitution and courts. Companies win against the government all the time.

Again: a nonsensical statement, China also has a constitution and courts, Chinese companies prevail in lawsuits against their government[1][2].

Your turn, name some top-tier US companies which have gone against the party and the regime in the past year.

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/1cddb8cc-a7ac-11e4-8e78-00144feab...

[2] https://chineseft.net/story/001076244/en

[Workaccount2]

If you knew about China, you would know that local governments are basically the kids of the emperor. You can complain to the emperor about his kids. You cannot complain to the emperor about the emperor.

But even that aside, the emperor still has ultimate say in the final ruling from whatever court. Please show me the stories of courts shooting down Xi. I can show you tons shooting down Trump...

[fragmede]

The supreme court's decisions lately seem to be more Xi oriented in style than is perhaps, comfortable, if one wishes to put some daylight between the practices of the two nations.

[Imustaskforhelp]

> You can't hold up the US as some kind of beacon of freedom from state control anymore

100% agree. I never said that America is a beacon of freedom. To be honest, its Europe for me which still has overall more freedom and less blatant corruption than America's blatant corruption right now

I was just merely stating that these are on a scale though. European freedom (think proton or similar,yes I know proton's swiss but still) > America's freedom > China's freedom

Its just that in my parent comment I had mentioned America models solely because they are still better than China's in terms of freedom.

Europe already got mistral but an European SOTA model does feel like it would have advantages.

[_DeadFred_]

I stress about China because I'm pushed to. But I feel like we're all getting caught up and letting things go ways they shouldn't. 10 years ago when I did some work in China the companies were privately owned and just had a party member or two inside. It was different, but not what I had built up in my head. We went to some singing and drinking things, and the party members were just normal humans with normal human motivation when you got them to talk after a few drinks. Hell the ones I met were educated in the USA.

The damage internet discourse is doing between us all frankly seems the worst threat. Look at the H1B discourse. We hate a shitty American policy abused by AMERICAN companies, yet it gets turned against humans who happen to be from India. We gotta not do that. We gotta not let things between China and us get so out of control. This is going to sound America hating but look at how people see us Americans, it's not good. But we know we aren't as bad as they say. China has done things anathema to me. But the US has too. We have to work outside that. We have to. We have to. We have to get out of this feedback loop. We have to be adults and not play this emotional ping-pong.

[Supermancho]

> and just had a party member or two inside

This is exactly what I imagine and it's as chilling as anything ICE does openly or US insurance companies do to keep their bottom line moving up, because the ramifications are realized in silence. The silence is ensured by the same "regular" people in China.

[Imustaskforhelp]

Yes I 100% agree with you. Thanks for your insight.

> We have to be adults and not play this emotional ping-pong.

Your message does inspire me but I feel as if there rather isn't anything which can be done individually about the situations of both china and america or any country for that matter.

To me its shocking as how much can change if we as a community do something compared to something individual but also the fact that an individual must still try even if people aren't backing them up to stand for their morals and how effortless it can be for a community if they act reasonable and then listen to individuals who genuinely want to help

There is both hope and sadness in this fact depending on the faith they have in humans in general.

I think humans are mostly really good people overall but we all have contrary opinions which try pushing things so radically different that we cancel each other out or negate

I genuinely have hope that if the system can grow, humans can grow too. I have no doubt in the faith I have on an individual level with people but I have doubt in my faith at mass level

Like I wasn't saying that those chinese individuals in companies would be loyal to the chinese party beyond everything but rather I feel like at mass/combine it to something which happens to every company basically and then I have doubts of faith in the system (and for good measure)

I am genuinely curious but when you mention we have to be adults, what exactly does that really mean at a mass scale. Like (assuming) if I gave you the ability to say one exact message to everybody at the same time, what would the message be for the benefit of mankind itself and so we stop infighting itself perhaps too?

I am super curious to know about that