On the AI and China issue, it would pay to carefully distinguish the promotion of careful international governance from the unilateral ceding of advantage to China. Careful governance can be had (at least in principle) while maintaining something of a lead. The trouble with the argument for governance is that its opponents (as in the case of Leamer et al) paint it as surrender. Just like in the Cold War, international treaties do not have to mean surrender or yielding advantage.
Hey Marcus--Long time...(I think Boulder, CO was our last and maybe only in-person conversation?)... Yeah, it's shocking how rarely the 'but China' argument gets sustained pushback. I try to do that every now and then on the podcast (including on the most recent episode), but my humble platform has yet to transform the American zeitgeist...
Almost half of Americans appear to be happy that Trump is our president. That continues to astonish me.
Interesting read from China: https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/13/8/nwag204/8644097
On the AI and China issue, it would pay to carefully distinguish the promotion of careful international governance from the unilateral ceding of advantage to China. Careful governance can be had (at least in principle) while maintaining something of a lead. The trouble with the argument for governance is that its opponents (as in the case of Leamer et al) paint it as surrender. Just like in the Cold War, international treaties do not have to mean surrender or yielding advantage.
I have yet to hear a coherent case for the zealous "but China" argument. (There are plenty of less than coherent explanations.)
Hey Marcus--Long time...(I think Boulder, CO was our last and maybe only in-person conversation?)... Yeah, it's shocking how rarely the 'but China' argument gets sustained pushback. I try to do that every now and then on the podcast (including on the most recent episode), but my humble platform has yet to transform the American zeitgeist...
China should offer to help American AI critics. How do we set this up?