Which is article titled "A Dark-Money Campaign Is Paying Influencers to Frame Chinese AI as a Threat" by Taylor Lorenz.
Apropos, I think
And my own question: If China AI bad, why more bad than US AI? Will Chinese vacuum-robot abduct Trump as did Anthropic Maduro? That would be bad, but China not seem interested in such thing
Another instance of addressing a longstanding issue, but in a way that merely sidesteps the fundamental problem and opts for ham-fisted destruction instead. Of course this is not terribly surprising from a regime whose primary aim seems to be parting out the United States for scrap value.
The answer here has always been regulation to unbundle hardware, software, and services. Fundamentally this is an antitrust issue - a manufacturer of hardware should not be able to force purchasers to run particular software on it (whether overtly through technical restrictions or merely tacitly through lack of documentation). And a developer of embedded software should not be able to force users to interact with a particular network-provided service to use the software.
But of course actually enacting such constructive reforms would run afoul of the domestic surveillance industry, which enjoys employing such anti-competitive tactics to bolster their own positions. And so we get fake reforms aimed at further restricting competition.
I'll never understand why the US government didn't let Amazon acquire that dead husk of a company. Letting it fall into the hands of its overseas suppliers was the very clear alternative and clearly a far worse option.
6 comments of 14
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 16.0 ms ] threadhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49101395
Which is article titled "A Dark-Money Campaign Is Paying Influencers to Frame Chinese AI as a Threat" by Taylor Lorenz.
Apropos, I think
And my own question: If China AI bad, why more bad than US AI? Will Chinese vacuum-robot abduct Trump as did Anthropic Maduro? That would be bad, but China not seem interested in such thing
https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/pentagon-used...
The answer here has always been regulation to unbundle hardware, software, and services. Fundamentally this is an antitrust issue - a manufacturer of hardware should not be able to force purchasers to run particular software on it (whether overtly through technical restrictions or merely tacitly through lack of documentation). And a developer of embedded software should not be able to force users to interact with a particular network-provided service to use the software.
But of course actually enacting such constructive reforms would run afoul of the domestic surveillance industry, which enjoys employing such anti-competitive tactics to bolster their own positions. And so we get fake reforms aimed at further restricting competition.