Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PRC elites voice AI-skepticism

jamestown.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–127 of 127 posts

Re: PRC elites voice AI-skepticism

#121

Post by sincerely »

intalentive wrote: post #64
XenophileJKO wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking about this yesterday. My personal opinion is that the PRC will face a self created headwind that likely, structurally, will prevent them from leading in AI. As the model get's more powerful, you can't simply train the model on your narrative if it doesn't align with real data/world. At some capacity, the model will notice and then it becomes a can of worms. This means they need to train the model to be…

>As the model get's more powerful, you can't simply train the model on your narrative if it doesn't align with real data/world. That’s what “AI alignment” is. Doesn’t seem to be hurting Western models.

Grok goes off the rails in exactly this manner fairly often

Re: PRC elites voice AI-skepticism

#122

Post by skissane »

corimaith wrote: post #119
skissane wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As the model get's more powerful, you can't simply train the model on your narrative if it doesn't align with real data/world. > At some capacity, the model will notice and then it becomes a can of worms. I think this is conflating “is” and “ought”, fact and value. People convince themselves that their own value system is somehow directly entailed by raw facts, such that mastery of the facts entail acceptance of th…

It's not vulnerability to western progressivism (which isn't taken seriously on a academic level) but postmodern or poststructuralist critique, which authoritarian states are still privy both as a condition in their general societies in depravity and as exposing epistemic flaws in their narratives.

Is authoritarianism actually susceptible to postmodern/poststructuralist critique?

The philosophcial coherence of postmodernism and poststructuralism is very much open to question.

But even if we grant that they do have something coherent to say, does it actually undermine authoritarianism? Consider for example Foucault’s theory of power-knowledge-Foucault wanted to use it to serve “liberatory” ends, but isn’t it in itself a neutral force which can be wielded to serve whatever end you wish? Foucault himself demonstrated this when he came out in support of Iran’s Islamic Revolution. And are Derrida or Deleuze or Baudrillard or whoever’s theories ultimately any different?

Xi and Putin and Khamenei and friends have real threats to worry about - but I struggle to take seriously the idea that postmodernism/poststructuralism is one of them.

Re: PRC elites voice AI-skepticism

#123

Post by corimaith »

skissane wrote: post #122
corimaith wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not vulnerability to western progressivism (which isn't taken seriously on a academic level) but postmodern or poststructuralist critique, which authoritarian states are still privy both as a condition in their general societies in depravity and as exposing epistemic flaws in their narratives.

Is authoritarianism actually susceptible to postmodern/poststructuralist critique? The philosophcial coherence of postmodernism and poststructuralism is very much open to question. But even if we grant that they do have something coherent to say, does it actually undermine authoritarianism? Consider for example Foucault’s theory of power-knowledge-Foucault wanted to use it to serve “liberatory” ends, but isn’t it in…

Postmodernism itself by its nature is slippery to define, but it's functional result is endless, ontological deconstruction which is corrosive to any ideology reliant on grand narratives, just as to liberalism, authoritarianism and "historical continuity" is no exception. To properly "defend" yourself against it requires certain ontological structures that are fundamentally at odds with the authoritarian worldview, partly because authoritarianism is quite postmodern. They use it to attack liberalism, but at semantic level they aren't any better protected.

Furthermore on the more real side of thing, the postmodern condition is precisely what many authoritarians, namely China are wary of, yet it's probably true that the postmodern condition has already entered Chinese society with degrading social trust, increasing atomization, excessive materialism, influencers running amok, "bread and circuses" with gacha addiction - everything they critique of liberalism at a social level has come to them regardless.

Re: PRC elites voice AI-skepticism

#124

Post by skissane »

corimaith wrote: post #123
skissane wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is authoritarianism actually susceptible to postmodern/poststructuralist critique? The philosophcial coherence of postmodernism and poststructuralism is very much open to question. But even if we grant that they do have something coherent to say, does it actually undermine authoritarianism? Consider for example Foucault’s theory of power-knowledge-Foucault wanted to use it to serve “liberatory” ends, but isn’t it in…

Postmodernism itself by its nature is slippery to define, but it's functional result is endless, ontological deconstruction which is corrosive to any ideology reliant on grand narratives, just as to liberalism, authoritarianism and "historical continuity" is no exception. To properly "defend" yourself against it requires certain ontological structures that are fundamentally at odds with the authoritarian worldview, p…

Your invocation of the “postmodern condition” appears to be conflating the culture of late capitalism with a specific philosophical school which purports to explain it - you can affirm the reality of that condition in the present without agreeing with the proposed philosophical explanation - and does that philosophy actually have any useful response to it, when all it can do is state the obvious fact that it exists, albeit in an obscurantist way? Coming back to Kiryas Joel-maybe that is a more interesting response in proving that an alternative actually is possible-although it is unclear whether the CCP has the capacity to pivot in that general direction.

And that’s the other point - Kiryas Joel is full of grand metanarratives, and postmodern attempts to deconstruct them achieve nothing - nobody is listening. I doubt deconstruction is intellectually coherent - but even if I’m wrong and it is, how is it practically relevant? At present growth rates, Kiryas Joel’s population doubles in less than a decade - will that be sustainable in the long haul? Well, we shall see - but I feel confident in saying that whether it is sustainable or not, has nothing to do with postmodernism or poststructuralism

Re: PRC elites voice AI-skepticism

#125

Post by corimaith »

skissane wrote: post #124
corimaith wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Postmodernism itself by its nature is slippery to define, but it's functional result is endless, ontological deconstruction which is corrosive to any ideology reliant on grand narratives, just as to liberalism, authoritarianism and "historical continuity" is no exception. To properly "defend" yourself against it requires certain ontological structures that are fundamentally at odds with the authoritarian worldview, p…

Your invocation of the “postmodern condition” appears to be conflating the culture of late capitalism with a specific philosophical school which purports to explain it - you can affirm the reality of that condition in the present without agreeing with the proposed philosophical explanation - and does that philosophy actually have any useful response to it, when all it can do is state the obvious fact that it exists,…

Pointing to a small town as opposed to superpowers of hundreds of millions is a bad comparison, they are fundamentally different beasts.

Whether postmodernism is coherent by itself dosen't mean much either in its potency to deconstruct, it was already quite effective in destroying the Western "myth", I don't see how the CCP's own narratives are more resilient when they have even weaker assumptions. It's not about listening to them after all, but not listening to the dominant narrative.

Re: PRC elites voice AI-skepticism

#126

Post by ninalanyon »

KaiserPro wrote: post #19
fragmede wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI Threatens the Workforce Under communism, why is this a thing? I know that China hasn't been strictly communist since the Soviets fell but ostensibly, humanoid AI robots under semi-communism is a the dream, no?

An unemployed populace is prone to revolution.

Is it? Or is it simply that all unemployed populations so far have been poor and uncomfortable with nothing to lose?

If we ever get to a point where it is not necessary to work might we not instead end up with Arthur Clarke's Diaspar (The City and the Stars/Against the Fall of Night)?

Re: PRC elites voice AI-skepticism

#127

Post by ninalanyon »

kelipso wrote: post #104
GoatInGrey wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The PRC asserts that they follow a modified Marxism-Leninism. Though the ideology is full of hypocrisies and plain old nonsense. For instance, they refer to themselves as a "people's democratic dictatorship" that is "led by the working class". This irrationality extends into their stated foreign policy approach of "peaceful rise" & respecting sovereignty, a "socialist market economy" in which independent labor unions…

> a "people's democratic dictatorship" that is "led by the working class" … You never heard of the dictatorship of the proletariat?

I'm sure they have, but the PRC isn't one.
Post reply on HN