zlacker

>>apsec1+(OP)
I wonder how much of this was the influence of Hinton on his former student, Sutskever. I'm sure Sutskever respects Hinton above basically anyone out there and took Hinton's strong objections seriously.

I think personally think it's a shame because this is all totally inevitable at this point, and if the US loses its leading position here because of this kind intentional hitting of the brakes, then I certainly don't think it makes the world any safer to have China in control of the best AI technology.

>>eigenv+o5
why do you think one company will determine whether the us beats china in ai or not ? Like 75% of the authors i read on AI papers are Chinese, that should be far more alarming if you really are afraid of china getting ahead.

>>strike+K6
Research from PRC (across all of science, not specific to AI) has a terrible reputation. They are rewarded for sheer quantity. You can easily find many articles discussing this phenomenon.

So the volume of Chinese AI papers says little to nothing about their advancements in the field.

>>hilux+F8
That's a problem in all of science, and Chinese research is quite good in measures like citations as well, not just quantity of papers.

>>lucubr+yv
Chinese papers are (with much higher probability) citing Chinese sources. It's a self-empowering cycle, which doesn't say anything about the quality.

>>machom+1Z
Yes, and American papers are much more likely to cite American papers. Science is more international than the vast majority of professions, but there are absolutely still state cultures that are just more likely to have read research in their language, published by someone who's a friend or a friend of a friend, or have national institutions which concentrate scientific talent that make scientists be colleagues. Nowhere near as strong of an effect as other jobs, but it's still there.