>Party elites have increasingly come to recognize the potential dangers of an unchecked, accelerationist approach to AI development. During remarks at the Central Urban Work Conference in July, Xi posed a question to attendees: “when it comes to launching projects, it’s always the same few things: artificial intelligence, computing power, new energy vehicles. Should every province in the country really be developing in these directions?”
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?
And this is not something he came up with. This is a restatement of Stalin's philosophy, taken directly from the New Testament (remember that Stalin was training to be a priest in his youth): "He who does not work, neither shall he eat".
"“If anyone is not willing to work, neither should he eat.”
Not, not working, but being lazy and refusing to do necessary work. A scrounger exploiting the kindness of others. Very likely addressed to a community with limited resources.
it goes on to say:
"For we hear that some among you are living an undisciplined life, not doing their own work but meddling in the work of others. Now such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to work quietly and so provide their own food to eat. But you, brothers and sisters, do not grow weary in doing what is right. But if anyone does not obey our message through this letter, take note of him and do not associate closely with him, so that he may be ashamed. Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother."
That's true, but the context is Xi being against Western "Welfarism". I presume (although I don't know for sure) that they're not against some support for the truly disabled, but that doesn't cover able-bodied people being on welfare for long periods, even if the employment market is unfavorable. The major exception is that Chinese people have traditionally been able to retire relatively young (in their 50s or even 40s sometimes) and receive support, particularly if they work for state-owned enterprises.
As a westerner who has at least to some degree been influenced by socialism ideologically, but who perhaps isn't a communist (I don't know what my ideology really is-- and who does), I don't necessarily dislike welfare, but I don't want to build society on it. Instead I want some element of an actual 'to each according to his contribution'-type thing with an exception so that we treat disabled people and others who can't work or who for different reasons end up being unproductive in an acceptable way.
So I don't think this is necessarily unusual in the west either, especially not if you look back to 1950s or 1960s Swedish social democrats.
I think that’s what everybody wants. The problem is the statement 'to each according to his contribution' is subjective. Weighing “contribution” in a way everyone agrees on just hasn’t materialized. It’s probably going to get harder too as technology improves and changes more and more rapidly.
In a command economy the unemployment rate can be zero as everyone can be allocated a job. China is not a command economy, it is more like state capitalist which means the government owns/controls companies in key industries.
Companies like Huawei have board members in the CCP but it’s a societal issue if a lot of private companies decide to automate their factories and displace tons of factory workers.
FYI, about 10% of the population in China are party members and you have to be invited, its seen as a good way of getting ahead and building your network. So most board members of most companies are probably party members.
The Party is the only Union you need citizen, a Union outside The Party is definitionally a Reactionary, Revisionist, Capitalist, Fascist, Enemy of The State. We outlawed 996, why would you need anyone else?
Of course. They outlawed private schools, get companies to donate multiple % points of their wealth to the state for redistribution, all companies exist purely at the pleasure of the government, nobody's wealth has any effect on their control by the government, etc.
It's a super communist state, it just happens to also embrace many parts of Capitalism.
> It's a super communist state, it just happens to also embrace many parts of Capitalism.
This is incredibly confusing thing to say. On its face, its like saying "it's a delicious apple pie, it just happens to embrace many aspects of cyanide" (or reverse cyanide/apple pie here if that its easier for you).
But I assume you could say more here? Like can we maybe at least share an understanding here that all the things you cite at the top would also not exist in a communism state? In perhaps an authoritarian state with an otherwise free market, these points make sense, they would succinctly describe that, but for a state that is supposedly precisely communist, these things simply don't apply! Maybe the school thing, but that would imply such a thing would need to be outlawed, which really doesn't make much sense in a communist society/state.
I know people get excited thinking about this stuff, I do too! But at the end of the day we must persist in using words precisely, we must at least try for something like semantic consistency. At the very least, so you and I can really see and understand our enemies, right? If I was a guy on another side, I would hope that I'd never mistake one capitalist dog for another paper tiger. It would be at the very least embarrassing! Right?
There has been a huge amount of privatisation. There are literally hundreds of billionaires.
The state still owns some critical things, but is that enough to make it communist? Its not everything and you can have state ownership and still have a ruling class that has control of the means of production which it uses to its own advantage.
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 are illegal & violently suppressed, and anything else you can think of.
They're basically totalitarian gaslighters. See how hysterical the PRC gets whenever any nation indicates that they will protect Taiwan from violent invasion. You can see an obsession with narrative control that borders on pathological.
As China is a communist country with a partly capital economy hoping to transition to socialist society. It is still in the process of transition and AI in its current form and controlled by capitalists will destroy their goal of socialist society. It is different when you have AI that any one can own and use from only the few can afford to own and run.
Yeah this might actually be the most interesting part of any of the ai bullshit. China as an amalgamation doesn't usually get my respect because overwhelming ccp control just usually destroys everything.
But in this case, it seems pure finger in the eye of expensive cloud AI helping to release somewhat open, run at home models can really turn the whole thing in a positive direction. Even if we have to work a bit to get around whatever alignment they shove in there, with heavy sandboxing and whitelist only networking this can be worked around.
Of course its all a huge gamble, will ccp see these risk and go SHUT IT DOWN. Or could they do one proper thing for once and somehow prop up open models?
>Deployment Lacks Coordination
>AI May Fail to Deliver Technological Progress
>AI Threatens the Workforce
>Economic Growth May Not Materialize
>AI Brings Social Risks
>Party elites have increasingly come to recognize the potential dangers of an unchecked, accelerationist approach to AI development. During remarks at the Central Urban Work Conference in July, Xi posed a question to attendees: “when it comes to launching projects, it’s always the same few things: artificial intelligence, computing power, new energy vehicles. Should every province in the country really be developing in these directions?”