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
I regularly read really good papers that come out of China. For instance, there's great CV work out of China.

>>bloves+Ej
The two statements are compatible. It can be true that there is a core of really high quality research coming out of China, and also that there is a huge “long tail” of low-quality research that is probably motivated by badly-calibrated publication quantity metrics. The US seems to be slightly more limited in this because (possibly) we have a smaller population of researchers, but also because our government funding sources for research (places like the NSF) tend to have some peer review that cuts against this sort of metric.