Pretty much in the same way that a significant number of people in tech who wants a good paying job looks up to people working for Zuckerberg.

  First, adhering to the principle of openness and win-win cooperation while boosting innovation-driven development. Xi highlighted the importance of encouraging open-source, openness, collaboration and sharing to facilitate technological innovation, industrial development and scenario-based application of AI.

(This is also widely reported in mainstream western media.)

I'm sure there will be a shift in tone/direction if/when Chinese models gain a substantial lead over the US models, but at least for now, this is the official stance.

There are some important fields of math that were conspicuously missing. In particular, cryptography.

There are obviously good reasons for being more cautious when dealing with cryptography results in math, but I'm not going to believe they released everything.

> Unless you mean they're charging money for a product that contains knowledge.

They have internal models that the public cannot use (at least not yet).

But I want to note that your line of reasoning seems to be a perfect answer to "if God loves us and is omnipotent, why does God allow suffering?"

.. and I'm not sure I accept that theological line of reasoning either.

> We're not taking about attachment to old ways. We're talking about attachment to human value.

Human values vary across time and cultures. I'm pretty sure if people 100 years later look back onto this discussion, they will think you're attaching to old ways. Society will adopt to super-intelligent AI, and nobody will understand why you'd intentionally deprive your loved ones of a better life and prefer to watch them "struggle".

I'm not sure the world is better if everyone was forced to do TLS handshake math by hand.

The last couple decades of economic development (of the first world at least) was in a large part due to the efficiency gains by not having people do math by hand. The world will definitely not be better if you just blew up all the computing tech since calculators were invented.

I don't think you disagree with the comment. Maybe it's a cynical way to describe the situation, and it sounds mean, but it doesn't make it untrue.

If mathematicians can't be motivated to understand math and advance human understanding via (for example) reading AI proofs because they can't put their name on new discoveries, then yes we need to figure out the motivations.

> It is highly reductive to argue that the only motivation is as crass as you put it.

"Genuine curiosity and underestanding" is apparently not enough to motivate all mathematicians (I'd even extend this to all researchers in all fields). If AI creates an environment where "prestige" can no longer be assigned to individuals and this creates a crisis in motivation among researchers, well, this is a problem, and accusing researchers as "greedy for status and clout trying to write their name on new discoveries in blood" is a somewhat mean and distasteful description of how we got into the situation. But again, not untrue IMHO.

Note that they didn't say the greed for status is the only motivation. We're adults here. We can see the strawman. I think we're all on the same page. Quit crying over insults.

It's just that incidentally, "entity you do not trust outside your jurisdiction" also includes basically your average crypto peer.

Sure

Where is the the evidence for me using the washing machine at the wrong time causing climate change?

As I said, I don't mind people claiming that washing clothes itself is bad for the environment (it contributes a little bit), but the idea that it's bad specifically because I wash it at a bad time? That's insane.

It's crazy that you guys do.

What the heck? Where is your evidence that using washing machines at inconvenient times is going to destroy the environment?

If your argument is that any use of electricity from fossil fuels is destroying the environment, then nobody should even be charging their phones at night. Time-shifting washing machines isn't going to fix carbon emissions since they're going to be emissions at any time of the day.

I don't know how you guys in Europe managed to gaslight yourselves into justifying regression of social and technological development. A lot of these moral arguments do not make sense. You said it yourself -- industry is incentivized to convince the public to use less electricity during peak hours so they can pay less. It's pretty much a psyop by capitalists. And for some reason you're shilling for them even though presumably you're paid exactly zero buckaroos

Greed is a myth. The only greed people have for is money, which is a creation by the capitalist machine. But when it comes to concrete things, human greed is limited by their lack of imagination. If you take away abstract money, over-abundance is definitely possible.

Don't know if GP's comment has any backing at all, but the statement that "not all judges agree" is probably literally true (though not necessarily meaningfully true), given that it's a recent case in a district court, issue hasn't been heard in an appeals court yet (presumably), and the fact that all things AI are constantly in flux.

That said I think it's generally a good idea to err on the "safe side" and assume that there's no privilege at all in communications with purported AI lawyers.

Thing is there isn't a "principle" from we won't use AI designed/implemented things. It just depends on the cost/benefit/risk balance, and the risk part is largely subjective (because we don't have enough data, and if we avoid using AI before we have enough data, then we won't have data for a long time).

I don't think you have a consistent argument or stance.

It seems your argument is that nobody should be reading the "AI slop" proofs, because if they were seriously studied, a lot of them will turn out to contain errors, and you know this because people have checked and found 1% of them to be wrong, which you knew even before anyone checked them, because nobody should be reading those proofs in the first place.

At least you'd be consistent if you keep arguing that it's going to be a waste of time to check them. You knew it right? Why even bother to see what the numbers turned out to be?

But there are artistic expressions of programming. Check out the IOCCC for example. (old school stuff) There are similar competitions for newer languages and systems, but I haven't looked into them much. And then there's the demo scene, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.kkrieger etc...

Robots automating everything and humans not needing to work was the stuff paradise fantasies were made of.

Sure, it would be the end of capitalism (which, I guess you could describe as "economic dark age"), but people these days have so little imagination what life outside of capitalism looks like that ideal societies sound like a horror story.

Especially if the timeline is 40 years (as opposed to, say... 4.) I have no doubt AI-assisted robotics development would have solved the plumber and electrician jobs in a decade or two.

Some of those complaining today are the ones who keep saying "LLMs are just stochastic parrots predicting the next word", "how can AI do math if they can't even count the number of 'r's in strawberry?", etc.

It doesn't take a genius to realize AI will start getting better and possibly become a "threat" even before all this mathocalypse stuff happened.