Do you really think that a scientist is going to walk up to his friend from the Politburo and say “Hey, I know AI is a central priority of ours, but there are a few fringe scientists in the US asking for treaties limiting AI, right as they are doing their hardest to cripple our own AI development. Yes, I believe they are acting in good faith”
This part focused me, what happens if you do this is, your politburo friend answers “that’s obviously dangerous propaganda, so I’m going to generate counterarguments against it so that no one entertains it ever again, because we can’t afford to have those sorts of doubts around when we’re so far behind.”
But of course, that reaction is not healthy. An international alignment treaty should be seen as a way for China to convince the US to let them catch up, in a sense, by getting an equal seat at the table, which they’re otherwise not going to get. If they want to survive this, they’d do well to note that.
This part focused me, what happens if you do this is, your politburo friend answers “that’s obviously dangerous propaganda, so I’m going to generate counterarguments against it so that no one entertains it ever again, because we can’t afford to have those sorts of doubts around when we’re so far behind.”
But of course, that reaction is not healthy. An international alignment treaty should be seen as a way for China to convince the US to let them catch up, in a sense, by getting an equal seat at the table, which they’re otherwise not going to get. If they want to survive this, they’d do well to note that.