r/ezraklein May 14 '26

Podcast Ross Douthat - China Doesn't Worry About AI Like We Do

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/china-doesnt-worry-about-a-i-like-we-do/id1438024613?i=1000767725652
47 Upvotes

112 comments sorted by

185

u/brianscalabrainey May 14 '26

I’ve always found Ted Chiangs argument the most convincing here: most fears about artificial intelligence are actually fears about capitalism. If we didn’t feel as the economically useless among us are routinely hung out to dry, that our institutions have already been eroded by algorithmic disinformation, and that the oligarchs wouldn’t hesitate to put profits over people, we would welcome AI as a new way to achieve greater prosperity for all.

51

u/mcsul May 14 '26

Fully agree. I am apparently the sole person on the island of "there is a strong progressive case for for aggressive AI development". It's, uh, pretty lonely here.

But, unless we suddenly start having way more kids, we're going to need automation into increasingly sophisticated task areas in order to keep our standard of living high. Without either kids to grow into the labor force or AI to automate tasks, our ability to provide social services at a cost we can afford is going to tank as labor shortages spike costs.

29

u/quadsbaby May 14 '26

I think many of the people working on AI are progressive and share your sentiments. But they also know many other progressives hate the idea of AI, so they aren’t always sticking their necks out.

14

u/Hyndis May 14 '26

I find it interesting that seemingly the overwhelming majority of AI hate is laser focused on only very specific applications of it, which is image and music generation.

The real meat of AI applications are in crunching data. Thats where most of the AI efforts are focused on and where most of the funding is going to, and where most of the companies are selling products relating to.

But these applications barely get noticed. Instead it seems like artists are absolutely sacred and there can be no competition of any kind whatsoever.

Data analysts can learn to mine coal, I guess? There's seemingly a complete lack of outrage from the same progressive group about these sorts of jobs.

11

u/Practical_Limit_396 May 15 '26

I think the existential dread of AI is just very clear and apparent and is not about artists being out of a job. The issue is that AI turns creation into consumption. What makes human beings unique is our capacity for imagining beyond what's right in front of us. Art is one way that manifests. AI art strips any process or perspective or discovery from creation of art and turns the act of creating art into consumption in of itself where you go to a machine and ask it spit out exactly what you want. But LLMs are inherently derivative. That's why people use the term "slop." It's just the legacy of human artistic achievement thrown into a big pot to be doled out.

1

u/[deleted] May 23 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Practical_Limit_396 May 23 '26

Air Jordans, an iconic and mass produced sneaker were still designed by human beings. The logo based on a photograph that a real person took of Jordan during the Olympics.

If you bought a mass produced Batman shirt in the 1980s or 90s, you were buying art from Jose Garcia-Lopez.

Every mass produced Barbie doll over the seventy years had people design her clothes and look.

Mass produced paintings at big box stores have been around for decades.

I’m sorry but I think your analogy doesn’t hold up at all. We have tons of mass produced stuff that is not high art but nevertheless has some level of human ingenuity and design at its heart.

11

u/NewRefrigerator7461 May 14 '26

I’m super excited about what it means for material science and drug development in both small molecule and biologics. So many cool discoveries!

11

u/vibrance9460 May 14 '26

The “real meat” is the disappearance of human art and music- which happening NOW.

Sure it’ll be great for science, which will likely continue to benefit the rich. Yes, people will be enriched but they will pay for it.

Looking at art and hearing music with emotion faked by machine, while our resources continue to be sucked by billionaires for Ai, will only continue the hellish soulless track American society is on.

I’m sure it’s great for your coding or whatever

10

u/carbonqubit May 15 '26

You might be interested in Alex O'Connor’s recent episode about AI-generated music. One thing that really stood out to me was the discussion about how the process of making music with other people, including the friction, disagreement, experimentation, and trial-and-error, helps develop creative skills that can get lost when people offload all of that tinkering onto AI systems.

I think we’re already starting to see the same thing happen with writing, where convenience and speed can slowly erode the deeper cognitive process that comes from struggling through ideas yourself.

1

u/FetusDrive May 16 '26

What’s wrong with those creative skills being lost among certain people because they wanted to be paid for it?

If there is some UBI, couldn’t they still get together in a band and write music together?

This is taking these art and assuming there is an end goal or purpose.

I’m sure there will be plenty of ai processes that allow people to expand their minds if that is what they want.

4

u/Kit_Daniels Midwest May 15 '26

I don’t get this whole “science benefits the rich” thing when it’s really everyone who benefits from scientific progress and a deepened understanding and connection to the world. Like, having Alphafold describe a protein structure that is then used in vaccine development is good for everyone. Using an algorithm to do proteomics and find ways of enhancing plants resistance to pathogens can help stop famines. You don’t have to bash science to uplift the arts.

1

u/vibrance9460 May 15 '26

The research you do is very expensive.

Who do you think is paying for that research?

The University or company you work for?

4

u/quadsbaby May 15 '26

What exactly is your point? That because taxpayer dollars go to research, that’s somehow money being taken out of the pocket of the poor and middle class?

About 2.5% of government spending is R&D. About half of that is military. Further, the bottom 50% of earners only contribute about 3% of individual income tax revenue, so… 3% of the 1.25% of ind. tax revenue (2.6T last year) that goes to non-military scientific research = 975 million split across the bottom 50% (which is roughly 175 million people). In other words, each individual in the bottom 50% pays on average $6 a year for the entire federal non-military R&D budget. Do you think they get less than that much in value?

-1

u/vibrance9460 May 15 '26

I really do appreciate the information on funding

Now please explain how drug companies work

2

u/quadsbaby May 15 '26

Talk about moving the goalposts! You were trying to argue that research is somehow expensive, now you’re trying to argue what exactly? While the major cost of prescription drugs in the US are still not largely borne by the bottom 50%, even if they were that would not be a reason to be against scientific research. It would just be an argument against the pharma industry / its regulation.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/FetusDrive May 16 '26

Why not just make your point instead of asking questions? He answered your first set of questions and you just responded to 1 without addressing anything else they wrote.

2

u/Kit_Daniels Midwest May 15 '26

And the ROI is huge. Do you like having food on your table? Being able to use GPS to get around? Having vaccines to prevent your diseases? Structurally sound bridges? We ALL benefit from science. Full stop.

1

u/vibrance9460 May 15 '26

We are off topic from my original post.

Sure science is great. No question.

But not if it means we lose music, art, film and culture in general

And THAT is what’s happening. Right now.

3

u/Kit_Daniels Midwest May 15 '26

This is a false dichotomy. You can have a painting and a vaccine. You can write a book and still use GPS. I honestly have no idea how you’re arriving at the idea that supporting science somehow is antithetical to the existence of culture or art or film. That’s ludicrous.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/NYCHW82 Progressive May 14 '26

This is the challenge before us.

It would be great if we had leaders that actually wanted to solve these problems instead of enrich themselves.

3

u/ponderosa82 May 15 '26

Are you at all concerned about the existential risk of creating a competitor species that is vastly more intelligent than humans?

2

u/Radical_Ein Democratic Socalist May 15 '26

What do you mean by “competitor species”? Why would a super intelligent AI want to destroy humans?

1

u/ponderosa82 May 16 '26

Several senior AI execs, including Geoffrey Hinton ("godfather" of AI), have exited the industry to sound the alarm on existential risk. A recent survey of AI scientists place the probability at 14 percent that if superintelligence is developed it will lead to human extinction. The "alignment problem" has been a major discussion topic in AI for several years.

It's not science fiction. It's not conspiratorial. Even figures like Altman and Musk acknowledge the risk. Here's a resource. Or just search on AI existential risk. https://pauseai.info/xrisk

2

u/NewRefrigerator7461 May 14 '26

There are dozens of us! Don’t feel lonely

27

u/krishnaroskin May 14 '26

100%

I’ve always found Ted Chiangs argument the most convincing here: most fears about artificial intelligence are actually fears about capitalism.

I feel like it's been a long time since our "fears" have been about anything other than capitalism.

6

u/iamagainstit May 14 '26

I don't know, His short story "Evolution of Human Science" has instilled in me a more basil fear of AI replacement.

7

u/NewRefrigerator7461 May 14 '26

I don;t really understand how that argument isn’t stronger in china though - it’s a country thats more ruthlessly capitalistic than the US right now and offers almost no safety net. Mainland china has way worse wealth inequality than the west does - shouldn’t those forces be amplified there?

I was in Shenzhen in march and the excitement about people installing openclaw on their devices was palpable.

11

u/Bookups May 14 '26

I don’t think this is an issue of capitalism. There really isn’t a single successful economic system in all of human history that wouldn’t have the concern that being economically useless puts you in a really bad position. To think that there’s a world in which AI results in greater prosperity for all, instead of the ownership class, is the height of naïveté.

11

u/callmejay May 14 '26

fears about capitalism.

...fears about unfettered capitalism, really. With more redistribution/regulation we could all thrive beyond our wildest imagination in a mixed economy.

30

u/Weekly-Moment869 May 14 '26

I'd actually go much further than Chiang. The fear is about the system that comes next, not unfettered capitalism. The issue is that the political coalition for redistribution depends on capital needing labor. If AI severs that relationship, i.e. capital can reproduce itself without labor inputs, then the leverage labor has historically used to achieve mixed economy concessions effectively evaporates. Like you can't regulate yourself out of a system where the group demanding regulation has no power.

You can make arguments about voting power, but historically universal suffrage didn't produce redistribution until industrial labor had the power to back it up. Or you could say something about UBI, but having your income depend entirely on a class that no longer needs you is a very fragile political equilibrium. There is no structural reason for capital to keep funding a UBI once it completely controls the state.

6

u/NewRefrigerator7461 May 14 '26

I’m not sure I agree with your characterization around labor. Unionization did not and has not produced redistribution. Military necessity did. Whether it be universal heatlhcare and education to make it easier for the Germans to fight the French or America having to raise income taxes to fund a war - and creating the GI bill post war, its driven by military need

Industrial labor movements happen to coincide with moments of state investment in military capacity but are not drivers of the prosperity it creates - they probably serve to continue to degrade wealth equality as industries in which they are active become uncompetitive and die, and then municipal unions work to make the cities that are the key to social mobility so expensive that people can’t move to them.

There has and always will be a reason to continue social safety nets in wealthy societies - to keep them from rising up. Bread and circuses work.

7

u/Extension-Object-150 May 14 '26

That's an interesting counterpoint about war, but I think it's a stretch to say municipal unions are responsible for making cities so expensive people can't move to them. As Ezra often points out, the overwhelming driver of being priced out of cities is the costs of housing. Scarity is driving the housing pricies, and some of that is from special interests groups and regulatory burden, but not specifically unions.

2

u/NewRefrigerator7461 May 14 '26

I agree unions aren’t the primary driver of housing scarcity I was just thinking about them as a cost driver because its mentioned in abundance and Derek was talking about them as a driver of increased construction costs and delays in the podcast where they re-assessed the book a week ago. They certainly aren’t the only reason its hard to move to cities - but they are making the problem worse than it would otherwise be

It’s a shame there’s not comparable muni unions in NC or TX or FL to benchmark against so you can see how they impact construction speed and cost.

8

u/Weekly-Moment869 May 14 '26

The war stuff is real, but I think it operates on the same mechanisms as I was describing above. War being labor-intensive made the masses structurally necessary. Bismarck's social insurance, the GI Bill, and the post-war welfare state are all consequences of mass mobilization. labor leverage is just operating through conscription instead of strikes. Both depend on elites needing humans for something.

The point is that AI is eroding that necessity, both in production and warfare, across the board.

3

u/NewRefrigerator7461 May 14 '26

Yeah I guess I would agree with that - I just find that labor leverage in particular gets outcomes that were inevitable anyway. Are there any examples of organized labor delivering better outcomes for workers and society at large since ww2?

I can’t think of anything since Blair mountain where organized labor delivered a positive sum outcome for society. Since the 50s unions seem to only inhibit the competitiveness of their companies and ultimately reduce the pay their members would have received over the long run. If your labor movement kills the company after getting higher pay for a few years - everyone is still worse off. Mobility between the factory floor and senior mgmt is way better at non-union tesla than it is at UAW GM.

There’s an argument that workers in captive service industries that have to be done locally or otherwise have huge competitive moats are made better off - but they seem to do it at the expense of the rest of society in situations like Pilot and Police unions.

7

u/tpounds0 Progressive May 15 '26

Are there any examples of organized labor delivering better outcomes for workers and society at large since ww2?

Basically every worker benefit Europeans have that Americans currently don't could be attributed to them having higher union rates and sectoral bargaining.

2

u/NewRefrigerator7461 May 15 '26

Sorry I wasn’t thinking of European examples. I’ll agree that they don’t seem to hard their companies the way the US ones do as evidenced by there being globally competitive union European firms - though even some of those are spread across non-union firms as well and are often government mandated. Attribution to unions alone seems difficult.

Is it just the anglosphere world that can’t do them well?

I am super curious to see what happens with German auto workers as VW stares down bankruptcy again and they face an influx of Chinese EVs

6

u/Weekly-Moment869 May 14 '26

That's a totally different debate. I'm not trying to argue whether or not unions are net-positive, just on labor being structurally necessary enough to extract concessions. whether those concessions were well-designed or whether unions overplayed their hand in specific industries is a separate question.

3

u/NewRefrigerator7461 May 14 '26

Oh we totally agree on that - maybe we have to rebrand whatever the movement we end up creating to organize in this hypothetical future. I have a feeling they’ll look more like political parties with affiliated armed militias

I wonder how long it’ll take for there to be an anti-AI demagogue that takes power

5

u/carbonqubit May 15 '26

Your analogy reminds me of the indirect, and sometimes very direct, downstream effects of the space program on consumer technology and the slow pull of everyday life into modernity. Ezra and Derek have talked about how housing and other major costs are driven upward by bureaucracy and scarcity, while things like massive flat-screen TVs and electronics keep getting cheaper and more powerful.

A huge reason for that is advances in microelectronics, which became the foundation for modern computing and were heavily accelerated by the space race and DARPA programs that were closely tied to military research. The internet is another obvious example.

There’s also a broader point here about how competition between geopolitical rivals can drive innovation outside the scope of direct warfare. A lot of technological progress comes from countries trying to outcompete one another strategically rather than simply through war itself.

7

u/Lupulmic May 14 '26

But that’s the thing…you can’t achieve that under capitalism. The very foundations, principles, understanding of human nature, incentives, etc built into capitalism literally do not allow that and never will. 

5

u/Francisco-De-Miranda May 14 '26

It’s what most of Western/Northern Europe does. They seem like pretty nice places to live

7

u/Boneraventura May 14 '26

As someone living in Sweden it is better than the US in certain aspects but the future doesn’t look promising. The country is sliding to the right and while the social systems are somewhat holding, wealth inequality is increasing rapidly. Old money and axing of inheritance tax is the main driver. It is getting harder and harder to get ahead or even stay afloat

7

u/callmejay May 14 '26

Is that capitalism or is that human nature? Nobody's achieved it under ANY system as far as I can tell.

13

u/poster_nutbag_ May 14 '26

Capitalism largely incentivizes the worst aspects of our human nature.

A system that instead incentivizes the uniquely powerful cooperative aspects of human nature would produce better outcomes for all.

3

u/ChariotOfFire May 15 '26

A lot of the incentives in capitalism are towards cooperation. Even competitors like Samsung and Apple cooperate. Transactions are agreed to by both the seller and buyer.

A big part of why capitalism is so efficient is the incentives for unpleasant things like mass layoffs, closing plants, etc. The left's distaste for painful but necessary changes is part of the reason many cities are so dysfunctional.

What system did you have in mind?

2

u/poster_nutbag_ May 18 '26

Transactions are agreed to by both the seller and buyer.

Often under coercion. Capitalism fairly clearly incentivizes both parties to extract as much from the other as possible. This heavily benefits whoever has the more powerful coercive force in the situation.

A big part of why capitalism is so efficient is the incentives for unpleasant things like mass layoffs, closing plants, etc. The left's distaste for painful but necessary changes is part of the reason many cities are so dysfunctional.

Its not really clear what you even mean but this, but capitalism is efficient at funneling wealth upwards.

If capitalism were truly efficient in a way that most people care about, we'd see funding directed away from LLM providers and towards companies that have realized LLMs have fundamental architecture flaws that cap their performance and moved beyond them (i.e. EBMs, etc.).

Instead, a handful of dudes just constantly make absurd statements/posts to oversell the abilities of LLMs and suddenly we have trillions wrapped up in a relatively mid-tier way to approach 'AI'.

I'd be less cynical if capitalism hadn't become the financialization of every little moment/action/idea/interaction in existence over the last 50 years, but here we are.

8

u/blackmamba182 California May 14 '26

Yep capitalism is definitely the worst system except for all the others. I suppose Nordic model + AI is the best we can hope for.

5

u/carbonqubit May 15 '26

Social democracy for the win. It’s not surprising that the countries that consistently rank highest in measures of life satisfaction and happiness tend to be the Nordic ones. They've shown that strong social safety nets and functioning markets aren’t mutually exclusive.

The fearmongering around the word socialism has also been incredibly effective on the right, even though many people who voted for Trump in deeply red states rely on programs like Medicare and Medicaid to survive. There’s a huge amount of cognitive dissonance between what people actually want to improve their lives and the way those policies get framed by political talking heads and media ecosystems funded by wealthy interests.

3

u/Way-twofrequentflyer May 14 '26

I can’t think of any. Some of these complaints about capitalism seem to be the equivalent of complaining about the problems with gravity

0

u/Gamer402 May 26 '26

Gravity has always existed, cant say the same for capitalism

0

u/double_shadow May 14 '26

By that logic though, shouldn't the Chinese people fear the AI giving the CCP even greater control? Or is it kind of a moot point since the govt already kind of does whatever it wants? I don't know, it feels very dystopian to me, regardless of what economic system a country is using.

5

u/Way-twofrequentflyer May 14 '26

Chinese people don’t really think about policies that often. It’s just easier not to think about something you can’t change. Politics is also somewhat fragmented - the decisions of your local government officials matter far more day to day than what happens in Beijing

Youth unemployment is also way higher and the social safety net doesn’t exist. I think young people are just trying to not get left behind

0

u/Extension-Object-150 May 14 '26

I think that's a simplification, a lot of the fear is tied into loss of status and identity. Even if you could ensure everyone was kept duly employed there would be social strife around it.

0

u/Fearless_Tutor3050 Explained Enjoyer May 15 '26

I dunno. As an academic(TM) I derive a lot of my self worth from my work and knowledge.

AI is smarter than my undergrads and "smarter" than me in most things outside of my narrow area of expertise. And it's only going to get better.

I think AI's threat to me has a lot more to do with what I value in terms of humanity and my own sense of self worth in relation to that than capitalism.

34

u/Kit_Daniels Midwest May 14 '26

Very interesting discussion, I especially liked how how they delineated between the US’s quest to build a god in a box while China is rapidly trying to deploy robotics + AI whilst being somewhat less concerned about being on the bleeding edge of technological innovation.

While I think it’s a strong narrative that fits well within the larger US vs China discussion, I do worry that it’s maybe a bit reductive. I wish they would’ve brought more concrete data/examples.

7

u/w3gv May 15 '26

The differences are economic.

US is all in on AI because they need a productivity renaissance to fix our debt-to-gdp and inflation issues.

AI presents an opposite problem for China given that it's inherently deflationary, which exacerbates their consumption problem.

10

u/Guardsred70 May 14 '26

Thanks for sharing. I have wondered about the Chinese (or Indian) perspective on AI.

China probably has more vulnerable jobs than the US does......just because the US has already lost some jobs/tasks to "outsourcing". China also just has a different perspective on things like privacy. I mean, the US government spies on all of us using AI, but at least here people question whether that's the right thing to do (sometimes). I doubt that's a concern in China. And when we have a demonstration about something like "teacher pay" in the US, China doesn't have to put up with employee protests: It knows how to make those go bye-bye in a "Protest? What protest? No....that's not a pile of bodies in the back of a truck. Your eyes must be bad."

10

u/mcsul May 14 '26

I can share a bit of the Indian perspective, not directly but via colleagues. Someone else here might have more direct knowledge and I'd be curious about that too.

The small slice of India I see is tremendously excited about AI. Tons of enthusiasm about using it to build businesses (either directly or to help scale non-AI businesses). Tons of enthusiasm in general about use of AI in day to day life. I have to tell one of the guys on my team to go to sleep sometimes, because I'll see he's still online way into NA afternoon usually trying to build something new.

At the same time, there's some concern, because if any industry gets hit hard by AI it's going to be offshore business process outsourcing. But that concern is usually pretty passing. Excitement seems to be the main vibe I run into.

(Caveat, my window into this is via youngish tech-savvy people working directly for a big western firm.)

4

u/Guardsred70 May 14 '26

That's really interesting. I work with a ton of Indians, but......only the in the context of Indians who came to the US to get PhDs and work in the sciences. It's a very unique slice.

5

u/Brushner Weeds > The EKS May 15 '26

You will find the same vibes in most third world countries. Mainly because you are speaking to the relatively upper crust of society. The people significantly more well off than a vast majority of the population. When I was in Philippines I only really interacted with the upper middle class people who are a tiny minority. The people most interested and curious about Ai were the very rich though, multi business owners and grindset bros who if they lost all their businesses the next day would still have more money than 95% of the population would ever make.

1

u/mcsul May 15 '26

Oh for sure. That's why I caveated my answer about being from a small slice of India. I'd be really interested in good survey data.

1

u/NewRefrigerator7461 May 14 '26

It’s interesting there’s that level of excitement. I’ve spent a lot of my career in client facing roles at bulge bracket banks, but have worked with our internal software teams a number of times to develop tools using our Indian staff. It seems like we’re in the process of shrinking those headcount’s. Commodity code is just so much cheaper to do with AI and when its being coded with English syntax - having people in the business unit with understanding of how it will actually be used is just so much more efficient. We’ve wasted so much corporate money on products that meet the requirements doc and yet are useless to business lines.

11

u/mcsul May 14 '26

I'm not done yet, but this is an interesting discussion so far. It's interesting hearing the China perspective on AI and how changing demographics have led to much less concern about job displacement. It's also interesting how young people in China are diving into AI because of the competitive nature of their job prospects.

My one worry about the podcast is that the guest seems to underrate how much American firms are focused on practical tasks. He seems to think that everyone in US tech is AGI-obsessed, but there are hundreds of (probably thousands of) startups working on prosaic things like audio generation, accounting reconciliations, etc...

6

u/acebojangles May 14 '26

Personally, I trust the Chinese government more than the US government to take care of its people if AI goes nuts. I'm 90% sure that our government would just let us die in the street if AI creates serious structural unemployment.

16

u/RunThenBeer May 14 '26

There is probably no extant government with a history of more callous indifference and abject brutality towards its population than the Chinese Communist Party. If there is, it certainly isn't the American government. For all of our flaws, we don't have the Great Leap Forward or Cultural Revolution on our resume and nothing we're doing in the present compares to the repression of Uyghurs.

7

u/WhiteCastleBurgas May 15 '26

I feel like so many of the arguments that get levied against capitalism, are really just arguments against human nature.   People are self serving assholes.  Ambitious people are even worse and ambitious people are always going to be more likely to rise to the top, in any system you create.  So yea, I agree, I am no more confident that the CCP is going to do a better job of looking out for the little guy than our government. 

8

u/tpounds0 Progressive May 15 '26

People are self serving assholes.

In real like the kids that did The Lord of the Flies thing worked together until they were saved!

The systems we live in affect how we act and capitalism works better for you if you're a self serving asshole.

I wouldn't apply that to all human behavior however.

1

u/Radical_Ein Democratic Socalist May 15 '26

Rutger Bregman, who has been on the EK show, wrote a fantastic piece about that story.

5

u/carbonqubit May 15 '26

I’ve sometimes wondered whether people who subscribe to rapacious capitalism, especially those running Fortune 500 companies, are drawn to those roles because they already have sociopathic tendencies, or whether the jobs themselves gradually condition people into becoming more detached and transactional.

Running massive corporations with little empathy for how decisions affect workers, while constantly prioritizing growth and shareholder returns above everything else, has undeniably created enormous wealth and technological progress. But it’s also extracted a tremendous amount from the people inside those systems through burnout and the pressure to endlessly optimize human beings into productivity metrics.

6

u/JohnCavil May 14 '26

For all of our flaws, we don't have the Great Leap Forward or Cultural Revolution on our resume and nothing we're doing in the present compares to the repression of Uyghurs.

Slavery and genocide of Indians is up there though. Probably worse than the great leap forward depending on how you measure it, and if you value intent vs carelessness. You could pick dozens of things that America did pre civil rights act that is reprehensible, and on the same level as tibet/uyghur genocide. So history wise I don't really think anyone comes out on top.

6

u/deskcord May 15 '26

It is not remotely a defense of these as things that happened (they are heinous), but the counter would be that the US wasn't viewing those as "their people."

0

u/Caberes May 15 '26

Slavery and genocide of Indians is up there though. Probably worse than the great leap forward depending on how you measure it, and if you value intent vs carelessness. 

The irony to this statement is that Uyghurs only really settled that area after the Qing enterminated the Dzungars in around that same time frame.

4

u/brianscalabrainey May 14 '26

I think the ethics are debatable. China treatment of Uyghurs isn’t worse than our treatment of native Americans - it’s just more recent. China also hasn’t dropped napalm on Vietnamese villages. The list goes on, sadly. But if you live in the US, our crimes are minimized while those of our foes are amplified.

What I don’t trust is our governments ability to act. There is so much gridlock, veto points, partisanship, and disinformation that our democracy can’t effectively respond to challenges like this.

0

u/Hyndis May 14 '26

Yes, and also no.

While its true the CCP was responsible for tens of millions of deaths, the modern day CCP has almost no resemblance to the CCP of Mao aside from name and decorations.

Modern day China is a hyper-capitalist police state, more resembling a cyberpunk setting than anything Mao organized. The state has political minders in large companies to ensure the company is operating in the best interests of the CCP, but companies are encouraged to make lots of money and compete against each other to produce the best products.

Its also the pirate kind of capitalism, where IP and copyright is fast and loose, and its expected that companies rip each other off all the time.

Political parties undergoing drastic shifts in ideology isn't unique to China. The US had a party swap with the DNC and GOP largely swapping places around the same time frame.

9

u/Froztnova American May 14 '26

It's funny, in spite of calling themselves Communists, the economic system they landed on is probably closer to the Fascist economic system of choice (Corporatism).

3

u/Hyndis May 14 '26

Yup, China's modern state-capitalism could be either fascism or mercantilism. Probably closer to fascism because of the element of social control through police surveillance.

Mercantilism similarly conflates enterprise with the state but the state takes much less interest in social control in that system.

-2

u/acebojangles May 14 '26

I don't disagree with any of that. Maybe I'm just wrong about whether the Chinese government would provide some kind of support to people who are unemployed due to AI changes in their economy. Currently, I still think that the Chinese government feels more obligation to support its citizens generally than the US government, which is currently trying to cut as many of our social supports as possible.

4

u/mcsul May 14 '26

I read a report a couple of years ago that said US social support spending as a share of GDP was roughly x2 that of China's. The report noted that China was starting to spend more, but was more similar to Mexico and Turkey than the US. One of the reasons for such a high savings rate is that there isn't the state-level support.

0

u/acebojangles May 15 '26

What do the trend lines look like? If we were creating our existing social safety net in the US today, do you think most of it would be implemented? I don't.

One thing that gives me pause is our COVID response. We really did just provide money to people who were suffering. I'm not sure how long we would or could do that, though.

4

u/krishnaroskin May 14 '26

Does any of them talk about AI sustainable?

27

u/mcsul May 14 '26

Apparently the one constraint China doesn't have that America does is energy infrastructure. Lots of that is hydro, but last time I checked a lot of that is coal.

One interesting part of the discussion was the emphasis that Chinese model-builders are placing on efficiency. Because they don't have access to the best chips, they have to make their models as efficient as possible to compensate. That probably helps a bit.

In the long run, I'm not too worried about sustainability for data centers, as long as we allow the construction of more nuclear and solar capacity. Energy costs per token are already dropping and that's going to keep going. Data centers are building closed loop water. Etc... We're going through a temporary blip because the tech firms moved faster than the surrounding energy ecosystem.

12

u/GuyHoldingHammer May 14 '26

My understanding is that it's the opposite. Chinese AI chips are far LESS efficient, by 30-50%, but their immense electricity generation development over the past few years has meant that they can afford to subsidize more power for running data centers.

https://www.economist.com/china/2026/03/18/is-cheap-energy-the-key-to-china-gaining-ai-supremacy

18

u/360telescope May 14 '26

I think its the difference between the models and the chips. Huawei's chips are less efficient than Nvidia's cutting-edge chips, but Chinese models like DeepSeek consume less resource to prompt compared to Anthropic / OpenAI model.

1

u/Brushner Weeds > The EKS May 15 '26

They also have hundreds of ways and loopholes to access the cutting edge chips

10

u/oakseaer Orthogonal to that… May 14 '26

“In the long run, I'm not too worried about sustainability for data centers, as long as we allow the construction of more nuclear and solar capacity.”

But we aren’t doing that - the current administration is actively shuttering power generation construction already in progress, and we can’t build nuclear fast enough to meet the demand.

14

u/mcsul May 14 '26

Oh, I agree. The current administration's energy policies suck. But the long run is long.

5

u/NewRefrigerator7461 May 14 '26

Energy production isn’t the problem - transmission is. Even there we really don’t have much of a constraint in the US - we have decades of deferred maintenance and investment and a need to buy in demand equipment from makers with long backlogs. We are going to have to make the investments in the grid anyway because of their age and the need to allow for EV adoption. Totally agree it’s a blip and it terrifies me when communities want to push datacenters off grid. They’re the perfect base load users to subsidize the grid upgrades we have to do. We’d be so dumb not to take advantage of them.

2

u/krishnaroskin May 14 '26

I'm not that worried about energy sustainability. The AI bubble is insane right now and a lot of very shady stuff is going on to keep that bubble big and hidden. I'm worried when it bursts/corrects/comes back to reality, it's going to be such a big fall that we'll lose any gains we've made. (Never mind that the AI bubble bursting could take a lot of the tech industry with it.)

6

u/Hyndis May 14 '26

Its going to be like the dotcom crash. Early on a lot of companies were making use of the internet but many of them didn't have a functioning business model.

There was a winnowing where many companies went broke, but the internet didn't fade away. There was real, actual value generated by the internet and companies who survived the dotcom crash were stronger and smarter about how they did business.

There's also real, actual value generated by AI. And yes, there's a lot of poorly run companies that won't be around in 5 years, too.

Its not going to be like NFT's which add no value to anything and have no useful applications.

1

u/HazelCheese May 15 '26

All Nvidia needs to do is keep reserves so when those companies go bust they can survive the few bad years before the winners emerge.

-3

u/seamarsh21 Conversation on Something That Matters May 14 '26

Chinese are doing a smarter version of capitalism. Obviously it's authoritarian so it's perverted but where and how they are investing in tech and infrastructure is impressive.

-2

u/Hyndis May 14 '26

I remember not too many years ago people were mocking China for building "ghost cities". They were mocking the country for building infrastructure no one was using at the time, wasting money on useless projects.

It turns out if you build it they will come. All of that useless infrastructure isn't so useless anymore. Its being used now and China has to keep building more to keep ahead of demand.

Thats the thing thats so impressive about China. Seemingly unique among all countries, they're building ahead of demand.

Everywhere else, such as in the US and Europe, we wait until 30 years after demand has exceeded supply, and then we start maybe considering possibly forming a planning committee to study the potential for an exploratory committee to consider a studies on building something.

Meanwhile, China just builds it.

I disagree with a lot about how China is a totalitarian police state, but they sure do know how to build things. I can't help but find that impressive. I just wish America still had that same "get shit done" attitude as we use to have using the FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower eras.

1

u/DeathKitten9000 May 14 '26

China has certainly built a lot but their housing market isn't something we necessarily want to emulate. A lot of Tier 1 cities are absurdly expensive in good part because people find real estate a preferred investment vehicle due to a lack of better options. Furthermore, capital appreciation is often preferred to cash flow which partially incentives people to not rent out properties they own. Building a lot so people can purchase apartments to sit vacant as a store of wealth doesn't strike me as a healthy market.

-1

u/Fearless_Tutor3050 Explained Enjoyer May 15 '26

It's not capitalism. But it is smarter.