zlacker

>>tedsan+(OP)
I really don't understand the national security argument. If you really do fear some fundamental breakthrough in AI from China, what's cheaper, $500 billion to rush to get there first, or spending a few billion (and likely much less) in basic research in physics, materials science, and electronics, mixed with a little bit of espionage, mixed with improving the electric grid and eliminating (or greatly reducing) fossil fuels?

Ultimately, the breakthrough in AI is going to either come from eliminating bottlenecks in computing such that we can simulate many more neurons much more cheaply (in other words, 2025-level technology scaled up is not going to really be necessary or sufficient), or some fundamental research discovery such as a new transformer paradigm. In any case, it feels like these are theoretical discoveries that, whoever makes them first, the other "side" can trivially steal or absorb the information.

>>biimug+jN1
I'm not sure I buy the national security argument but as you say the other side can trivially steal or absorb theoretical discoveries but not trivially get $500bn worth of data centers.

>>tim333+gO1
Right, but $500 billion in data centers alone is not likely to get you very far in the grand scheme of things. Endlessly scaling up today's technology eventually hits some kind of limit. And if you spend that money to discover some theoretical breakthrough that no longer requires the $500 billion outlay, then like I said, China will trivially be able to steal that breakthrough and spend much less than $500 billion to reproduce it. Is "getting there first" going to actually be worth it? That's what I'm questioning.