We're not discussing Chinese politics, but aspirations, specifically their possible interest in winning the "AGI" race. We're also not running a one-liner tit-for-tat campaign. Bear with me, if you will. Our arguments require more than just a few, terse comments.
Agreed, I'm raising a politics-of-economics argument, but weighted more towards economic colonization than Communist politics. As such, the context of this discussion would then refer to some version of "AGI" as a tool for the PRC to be advancing a globalization strategy with. The Romans demonstrated how an empire only needed to be established administratively - with a hold over local chieftains - for all resources within that domain to be channelled at the behest of Rome. I think it would be considered unintelligent to try and "own" all colonized peoples, when instead one could get the same benefit by simply turning them into resources. The IMF demonstrated how their version of democracy could be enforced via loaded loans. The PRC have followed suit. One example being masquerading as an innocent Congolese company who won a national tender for iron ore in Australia. Once the Aussies woke up, more than 1 billion tons of iron ore had landed in the PRC. It's fair to say your Africa argument is pointless. The hard facts on the ground to the contrary are simply overwhelming. While perhaps not copying the aforementioned globalization models exactly, the PRC definitely exhibits tendencies to colonize globally. Arterial-infrastructure-for-unpaid-loans is a dead giveaway. These are the dominant patterns of deals the PRC have been forging with 3rd-world countries for the past, 5 years. Always the airports, railways, ports, and key weapons sites. While various globalization models are in use today, they all share similar heuristics. It is synonymous with empire building, by any name. The PRC announced, circa 1998, that their boundary of influence and method would in future strategy have no borders, as unrestricted warfare. In doing so, the PRC declared the world their theatre of operations, using any method they chose to use. In addition, the PRC just announced how 2020 was a huge success for them. I wonder why? The 2008/2009 post-economic crash radicalized the PRC's business practices, and produced a razor-blade of intent. At the time, the PRC, as subject state, kicked in and many private businesses went under while chanelling resources exclusively to the rescue of the state. It worked, and a loss of over $2 trillion was mitigated - at great cost to the private sector. Afterwards, a new aggressiveness to be number 1 in the world became apparent. For example, the PRC started hoarding US dollars, building up to having in excess stock to the value exceeding the total US debt to GDP. To be absolutely clear. I'm not referring to mainland China culture. I'm not referring to the Chinese people, but to the CCP as the PRC and their global strategy. Therefore, I'm not arguing about Chinese culture, but the 300-year strategic plans of an empire on the march. Perhaps then, what you perceived as being a "fear" or "unreadiness" of the PRC to pursue AGI, might've been ancient prudence. Why be the early adopters when there are simpler ways to skin the cat? Still, the PRC know - as do any other country in the world - that if they cannot nurture their supermassive population, they would be at risk of not achieving their global objectives for stability and growth. Growth = Relative stability and it may be achieved by all means possible. By ALL MEANS possible. I acknowledge the point on narrow AI. I made a similar point in my prior message. However, as you well know, the road towards AGI is not a quantum leap from narrow AI. There are multiple developmental stages in between the 2 poles. Further, you know what the technical difference is between a controllable superAI and AGI. Initially, it's a design choice. As such, AGI might just be the star to aim for in order to land on the moon. It seems, superpowers are now competing for 5th-wave technologies, with R&D towards a 7th-wave. That includes the PRC. The star might well be AGI, but the moon would be pervasive, adaptive AI (in the sense of near AGI). The playing field is levelling off. The PRC would never be left behind. However, physics are making one breakthrough after another, all the while looking for game changers. It might be, one such a discovery would soon open the doorway to AGI. For example, suppose the 4 forces were unified? With quantum computers, incredible force fields could be released with a workable theory of the cosmos. The hadron collider could fulfill it's potential. AGI seems a likely testbed for the 5th state of matter, perhaps a future 6th state, and even a 7th state. All I'm saying is that the scientific boundaries are now tumbling very fast. Never say never. It looks to me as if you have a motivated sense of having to argue as you do, to deny the PRC's having any such ambitions. Therefore, for the lack of evidence to the contrary, both our arguments are equally valid and only time would prove their reliability. Alternatively, one may choose to understand the development of this context and view these artifacts as building blocks within a strategic architecture, as a system. Then, to simply read the results off the outputs. On the weight of it, one may be pursuaded, or at least left considering its plausibility. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Again, if I were a betting man, I'd strongly suggest keeping an eye out for a few, significant surprises in the superAI category in networks directly beneficial to the PRC. I'm not saying the PRC are actively developing near-AGI on home soil, even if they may find application for its "stages" of product development. However, by virtue of the anecdotal evidence I observed in this context, I'm convinced the PRC are probably pursuing a version of AGI with utmost urgency. ________________________________ From: Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, 01 January 2021 10:45 To: AGI <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [agi] CCP as a model for AGI I don't have time to embark on an in-depth discussion of Chinese politics and history etc., though I do know something about it (not just due to living in HK for 9 yrs, but also my wife is a mainland Chinese AI PhD, etc.).... But I want to note a couple points, -- China has never sought global empire, they have sought empire within their borders and periphery. In line with this, they don't want to take over Africa, they want to get good deals on its natural resources so as to make China richer. Etc. -- Chinese culture habitually values stability over all else. AGI scares the Chinese gov't and that's part of why there's no Chinese analogue of Deep Mind or OpenAI at this point. They want AI they can control, and they are smart enough to know that AGI will not likely be controllable in any simple way. What they want is an armamentarium of narrow AIs they can use to achieve their various purposes in determinate ways. I have met with the AGI-oriented teams within Baidu, Tencent, Alibaba etc. as well as the top AI profs at Tsinghua, Fudan, BeiDa and other unis there.... Of course one can always hypothesize super-top-secret projects but without evidence this isn't so interesting to me.... Of course they have their top-secret projects in cybersecurity, hacking, weapons systems etc. but the pattern of recruiting/hiring w/in China does not support the hypothesis of a major top-secret AGI project. -- ben On Thu, Dec 31, 2020 at 2:21 AM Nanograte Knowledge Technologies <[email protected]> wrote: > > Why develop your own AGI when you can wait and eventually take it for free? > > Have a look at what China is investing in heavily: communications > technologies and the space race, currency, natural resources, independent > Internet/Web technologies, 5th-gen weaponry, AI-enabled transport, > supermassive production (build, food, water, and now moving to regen power), > and so on. > > What does that tell us? Either nothing, or that China is preparing a specific > environment for it to be able to push suddenly and effectively into > competitive territories. China only play to win, not to share. I think that's > what they have in common with the USA and Russia. > > Ben, for AGI, it must be that your direct, or indirect contribution to their > future capabilities speak for itself? > > China's scaled activities resemble strategies of empire building, not > dissimilar to the Han and Ming dynasties. > > In further support, more competitive indicators for my argument: > > China produces 1 million engineers per annum (they dominate the high-end > labor force). China have 2 million free, skilled to highly-skilled laborers > in prison (lowest-cost labor), China's GDP is growing while the rest of the > world are mostly stagnating (more liquidity). China have acquired masses of > land in many continents and are actively colonizing those areas with > loyalists and officials (space of influence where to establish colonies). > Chinese children make up an estimated 90%+ of all online English tutoring > (preparing to be in the West). China won the national health service contract > for the AU, the whole African continent - together with France (securing > medical influence of the largest continent - the breadbasket of the world). > > Furthermore, China have numerous young-adult citizens working as professional > and students on key projects in the West, and co publishing. China have many, > exact replicas of Western towns/city areas, assimilating choice citizens. > China's on a mission to be the first in the world, to build the biggest, to > be the smartest. I think they are succeeding. > > What does that tell you then? Is China going to compete, or are they already > in advanced phases of globalization? Are these symbols of a nation unsure of > its capabilities, bedding itself down to wait things out, or of a nation on > the march? > > Ask Taiwan, Australia, Japan, America and Europe then, consider the South and > East China Sea confrontations, growing incidents of war, and these might > agree with China's most-aggressive advancing tactics. China now, seems ready > to advance, while the West are reeling. > > To imagine and suggest that China are not going to effectively compete in the > AGI space is implausible. They are already, and I think they are just doing > it very smartly, most unobtrusively, and in a highly-militarized fashion. > > China are collaborating with many 3rd-party countries on emerging > technologies, smart countries, by all accounts. They have obtained deals for > new-gen nuclear plants in many countries, Namibia being the latest. > > Over the past, 5 years, there's been a trove of white papers and hi-tech > patents blossoming from China. I was looking for some of these products, but > they are not on the market yet. > > I predict we would soon see a massive unveiling of Chinese-owned general AI > technologies, as well as hordes of narrow AI applications. One thing is for > sure; where the West misses a step, China almost certainly steps in. > > Are Chinese persons more intelligent than their competitors, than > non-Chinese? It's still too early to tell. > > Can the CCP be studied as a model for AGI? Given the hi-tech impetus obtained > from the covid-pandemic, to my mind they are appearing to be rapidly moving > towards becoming the first nation with a citified singularity. Certainly, we > have much to learn from the Chinese. > > > ________________________________ > From: Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, 31 December 2020 11:19 > To: AGI <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [agi] CCP as a model for AGI > > > I don't think it's very useful to model complex systems like major nations as > one-dimensional utility-maximizers. Asking "whose utility function" about > a complex system of that nature -- which has a large number of > shiftingly-weighted, imprecisely-and-shiftingly-defined "objectives" and also > largely self-organizes in a non-goal-directed way -- is probably the wrong > framing.... But asking who will exert a more major influence (e.g. the West > versus China, or corporate shareholders vs. the scientific community) > certainly has meaning.... > > And I don't currently see evidence that China will exert more influence on > AGI than the West. Things could evolve that way. But I note there is not > yet a China analogue of Deep Mind or OpenAI, let alone say OpenCog or > SingularityNET or whatever. OpenNARS is founded by Pei Wang, who is > mainland Chinese originally, but is centered in the West, etc. > > I truly don't understand why folks believe the Chinese gov't is going to be > able to assimilate the US to its goals and thus achieve a dominant role in > shaping AGI .... China does have a larger population than the US and has an > extraordinary capability for mass-manufacture of electronics, and plenty of > other interesting advantages, but the AGI advantage seems clearly to US/UK ... > > I'd like to understand if there are better arguments though... > > ben > > ben > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 8:58 AM James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 12:17 PM Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Regarding the CCP as a general intelligence(*), I would say all societies and > large corporations can be viewed that way, but I don't see evidence that the > corporate-government complex of China is more generally intelligent than the > corporate-government complexes of US or Western Europe. What is the > evidence or argument in that regard?... > > > If the CCP is more capable of assimilating ("Turking") the US to the CCP's > utility function than vis versa then any claims as to the US being "more > generally intelligent" become superfluous. That's what I meant when I said: > > > The CCP-as-AGI is more capable of "Turking" the US-as-AGI than is the > US-as-AGI of "Turking" the CCP-as-AGI. > > > (*) to me calling a country or corporation an "AGI" feels needlessly > confusing, since these are systems largely composed of humans, and not > engineered from human parts but evolved from human social interactions. But > whatever, I understand what is meant. > > > The Future of Humanity Institute is an exemplar for why the question of > "Whose utility function?" cannot be swept under the rug with regards to > "systems largely composed of humans...evolved from human social > interactions". Indeed "artificial" means humans had agency in the creation > of the artifact. The concern of "Friendly Artificial General Intelligence" > hence "The Future of Humanity" is all about the proper application of that > agency in selecting the utility function of aid artifact. What future is > there for "humanity" under the wrong utility function of _any_ notion of AGI? > > > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 6:54 AM James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > > As with "AI debates" in general, people can easily talk past each other by > failing to acknowledge they are addressing different questions. Ben Goertzel > is addressing China's in/ability to create an "AGI" in the sense of Legg, > Hutter, et al. Steve Richfield is positing the CCP _is_ an "AGI" in a more > vague sense that might, if "black boxed" also fit with "AGI" in the sense of > Legg, Hutter, et al. Now, it may certainly be argued that _if_ Steve is > right, _then_ it is capable of _creating_ an AGI: "The Singularity" occurs > when some AI achieves the ability to create a more intelligent AI, and this > threshold of "AI" is the most general notion of AGI. > > My approach, respecting Steve's original question, is from a position that > what we call "The Global Economy" _is_ an AGI that is already operating with > an "unfriendly" utility function, seeing individual human beings as raw > materials in its environment to refine into "Mechanical Turks". The only > extent to which human quality of life, or even the quality of the biosphere, > is relevant to this AGI is the extent to which it can provide resources to > replicate its incorporations (corporations/NGOs, governments, etc.) wielding > hive-like power over, and ultimately disintermediating life in seeking access > to energy and matter. The CCP is merely among the more conspicuous cases of > evolution toward such an incipient AGI hive incorporation. > > Now, having clarified the question I am addressing (Steve's in the OP): > > Hive specialization in eusocial species recapitulates, in a less effective > way, the clone-army specialization seen in sexual organism stem-cell > differentiation (modulating SC clone gene expression) into various organs of > the organism. The brain is an organ. The CCP constructs its "brain" not so > much by altering gene expression of clones but by utilizing its long history > of civil service examination to mine the population for "neurons". THAT is > where the math comes in to compare the CCP to the US government's > intelligence agencies. Having said that, Ben is correct that the CCP's > structure is more amenable to this mining operation, and one should see the > "private sector" coddled by the CCP as an updated form of its civil service > examination tradition. While it may be true that the resulting "brain" is > not going to be as capable of producing a silicon AGI as the US, this misses > Steve's, or at least my point: > > The CCP-as-AGI is more capable of "Turking" the US-as-AGI than is the > US-as-AGI of "Turking" the CCP-as-AGI. > > Why do I say this? > > See my prior post describing all the ways the US has inhibited its own > intelligence agencies from mining the population for intelligence that those > intelligence agencies can "Turk". Indeed, it is my working hypothesis that > this inhibition was the result of the CCP engaging in the _real_ > "Unrestricted Warfare" that the document by that name represents as something > far more benign. > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 5:03 AM Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I don't think China's slightly higher average IQ is a big advantage for > them... > > However, their governmental organization obviously has some practical > advantages. As one example, they can get their intel/ military work done > directly within their big internet tech companies, rather than via sluggish > military contractors and limited-scope awkward back-channel-ish alliances > with big internet tech companies like happens in the US. This means they > are getting on average cleverer and harder working folks working on their > gov't oriented tech, not due to IQ issues but due to organizational issues... > > On the other hand they continue to have deep problems with radical technical > innovation due to a persistent culture of mistrust, and this will cause them > real issues, because there are significant differences btw US and China > contexts and copying/adapting Western innovations will probably not allow > them to overtake the West technologically... > > I predict AGI will emerge first via organizations that are centered in the > West, and China will then attempt to copy it, but will not be fast enough ... > because the org that first creates AGI will be very fast-moving and agile and > not that easy for creativity-phobic Chinese institutions to catch up with > > Note I lived in HK for 9 yrs and made many dozens of trips to Beijing, > Shanghai, Xiamen etc. etc. ... I have met w/ folks at the highest levels in > Chinese tech companies and SOEs and fairly high up in gov't. There is a lot > to admire and a lot to fear there, but I don't think China is really in the > race as regards AGI and nor do they have the capacity to extremely rapidly > play catch-up > > Of course all this could change in 10 yrs, so these comments are most > relevant if AGI is achieved in the next say 7 yrs... > > ben > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 4:22 PM James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > > It's "Unrestricted Warfare" and as I've pointed out on numerous occasions, > that document strikes me as a limited hangout disinformation. Keep in mind > the Chinese have a higher average IQ than Europeans, their population is > several times larger and they have a _very_ long history of civil service > examinations. Extrapolate that mean advantage out to the high IQ tail > where the ratios explode and it's hard to imagine how great an advantage they > have when it comes to "peacetime" strategy. Add to that the belly-full of > the West with Sassoon's steamships delivering opium and Mao calling it "a > century of humiliation"... > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 6:48 PM Steve Richfield <[email protected]> > wrote: > > As you are reading this, doing the best you can to survive the Pandemic, > consider... > > The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is a pretty good model for AGI, as there > are ~500 people working together to provide the best possible management for > China as it attempts to interact as well as possible with the rest of the > world. A rising tide usually floats all boats, but China perceived an > advantage to restrict information about COVID-19 to inflict it on the rest of > the world, which is consistent with their internal manual Unconventional > Warfare, which details LOTS of dirty tricks you might expect an AGI to employ > as it seeks its goals. This manual is a REALLY scary read. > > Why would anyone expect an AGI to be any "friendlier" than the CCP? Why > wouldn't anyone expect an AGI to be even nastier? > > This dirty deed WILL work for the CCP - unless worldwide revulsion costs the > CCP even more. I doubt whether an AGI would greatly consider feelings that > run counter to profit. We may all be paying dearly for not reigning in the > CCP long ago - and we might end up paying more if we turn an AGI loose on the > world - for exactly the SAME reasons. > > Thoughts? > > Steve Richfield > > > Virus-free. www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> > > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > http://goertzel.org > > "Words exist because of meaning; once you've got the meaning you can forget > the words. How can we build an AGI who will forget words so I can have a > word with him?" -- Zhuangzhi++ > > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > http://goertzel.org > > "Words exist because of meaning; once you've got the meaning you can forget > the words. How can we build an AGI who will forget words so I can have a > word with him?" -- Zhuangzhi++ > > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > http://goertzel.org > > "Words exist because of meaning; once you've got the meaning you can forget > the words. How can we build an AGI who will forget words so I can have a > word with him?" -- Zhuangzhi++ > Artificial General Intelligence List / AGI / see discussions + participants + > delivery options Permalink -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org "Words exist because of meaning; once you've got the meaning you can forget the words. How can we build an AGI who will forget words so I can have a word with him?" -- Zhuangzhi++ ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tf065676fd779dd5c-Me92b65a13a8d051df31f7b06 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
