✨👎 Xi Jinping an AI doomer? If only!

Maybe he is, but we shouldn't bet that communist China will reject technological acceleration in a race against America. We should hope it happens, however!

One of the strongest arguments — combining economic, political, and national security concerns — for American AI acceleration is this: Better us than China. That, at least, if you prefer the 21st Century to be (another) American Century rather than a Chinese Century. The latter would be the ultimate China Shock for the United States and the liberal democratic world order it holds together. Hard pass. 

Falling behind in the AI race, much less finishing second to achieving artificial general intelligence, isn’t an option. The US intentionally slowing down isn't an option — or shouldn’t be. Too much is at stake. As former Google CEO Eric Schmidt argues, “A breakthrough in this field could usher in an era of predominance not unlike the short period of nuclear superiority the United States enjoyed in the late 1940s.” Likewise, this from former OpenAI researcher Leopold Aschenbrenner: "The advent of superintelligence will put us in a situation unseen since the advent of the atomic era: those who have it will wield complete dominance over those who don't."

In the face of this high-stakes geopolitical and geoeconomic competition, AI enthusiasts and a growing number of Washington policymakers dismiss apocalyptic, sci-fi warnings about supersmart AI subjugating or exterminating humanity. Of course, this “AGI or Bust” thesis assumes the Chinese Communist Party also wants AI leadership and eventually AGI, ASAP and is stepping hard on the accelerator. Damn the safetyist regulations, full speed ahead, comrades! China does have its own version of America’s go-go accelerationists, as The Economist notes in its latest issue:

[In] general, AI-safety regulations are light. Some of China’s more onerous restrictions were rescinded last year. China’s accelerationists want to keep things this way. Zhu Songchun, a party adviser and director of a state-backed programme to develop AGI, has argued that AI development is as important as the “Two Bombs, One Satellite” project, a Mao-era push to produce long-range nuclear weapons. Earlier this year Yin Hejun, the minister of science and technology, used an old party slogan to press for faster progress, writing that development, including in the field of AI, was China’s greatest source of security. Some economic policymakers warn that an over-zealous pursuit of safety will harm China’s competitiveness.

But as the piece, “Is Xi Jinping an AI doomer?,” adds, the Chinese elite are hardly of one mind in embracing AI zoom over AI gloom:

But the accelerationists are getting pushback from a clique of elite scientists with the Communist Party’s ear. Most prominent among them is Andrew Chi-Chih Yao, the only Chinese person to have won the Turing award for advances in computer science. In July Mr Yao said AI poses a greater existential risk to humans than nuclear or biological weapons. Zhang Ya-Qin, the former president of Baidu, a Chinese tech giant, and Xue Lan, the chair of the state’s expert committee on AI governance, also reckon that AI may threaten the human race. Yi Zeng of the Chinese Academy of Sciences believes that AGI models will eventually see humans as humans see ants.

The article goes on to point out that some Chinese government officials have called for strict controls on potentially dangerous AI models, while some state agencies are funding research on AI alignment with (pro-Marxist) human values. President Xi Jinping has signaled at least some concern about AI risks, as evidenced by the recent report emerging from the party's "third plenum” that listed AI risks alongside major threats like biohazards and natural disasters. It also called for monitoring AI safety for the first time. Then there’s this about Xi:

More clues to Mr Xi’s thinking come from the study guide prepared for party cadres, which he is said to have personally edited. China should “abandon uninhibited growth that comes at the cost of sacrificing safety”, says the guide. Since AI will determine “the fate of all mankind”, it must always be controllable, it goes on. The document calls for regulation to be pre-emptive rather than reactive.

All that said, I don’t see the most likely scenario as one where Xi and the CCP unilaterally pause China’s AI development or negotiate with the US for a bilateral pause that would lock in the current status quo, perhaps even including an invasive “trust but verify” monitoring scheme of AI labs in both countries. (A return of Mutual Assured Destruction or arms control thinking and diplomacy.) While there might be plenty of internal CCP debate, the pro-economic growth accelerationists who want to outcompete the US will likely win in the end. Here’s why I think so:

First, there’s already solid reason to think China's economic growth will likely slow more dramatically than widely expected, perhaps to around two percent to three percent annually by 2050 versus the most recent four percent or five percent rate. This deceleration will be driven by a number of structural factors: the legacy of China's one-child policy contributing to demographic decline, diminishing returns on its investment-heavy growth model, slowing productivity growth, and limits to infrastructure-driven expansion. Contributing to or exacerbating some of those anti-growth factors: the stalling or reversal of pro-market reforms and greater reliance on state intervention in the economy. If China grows at the slower pace, it “would still likely become the world's largest economy,” concludes a report from Australia’s Lowy Institute. “But it would never establish a meaningful lead over the United States and would remain far less prosperous and productive per person than America, even by mid-century.” 

Second, missing the higher GDP growth targets by a wide margin could strain the social contract between the CCP and its citizens. The legitimacy of the party has been largely built on delivering economic prosperity. Significantly slower growth might lead to increased social unrest, especially among younger generations with high expectations for improved living standards.