Foolish Exclusions: China and the Bletchley Declaration on AI
At the conclusion of the Second World War, debates raged on how best to regulate the destructive power of the atom. Splitting it had been used most savagely against the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, thereby ending, to date, the globe’s costliest war. Visions also abounded on the promise and glory of harnessing such energy. But the competitive element of pursuing nuclear power never abated, and attempts at international regulation were always going to be subordinate to Realpolitik. Yet even at such a tense juncture in human relations, it would have been absurd, for instance, to have excluded such a major power as the Soviet Union from such discussions.
Over the first few days of November, at Bletchley Park in Buckinghamshire, we saw something akin to that parochial silliness take place regarding discussions on the safe development of artificial intelligence (AI). While the People’s Republic of China was not entirely barred from attending proceedings at UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s widely advertised AI Safety Summit, it was given a shrunken role.
The very fact that China has any role to play was enough to send Liz Truss, Britain’s stupendously disastrous, short-lived former Prime Minister, into a state of spluttering agitation. In a failed effort to badger her successor via letter to rescind the initial invitation to Beijing, she revealed how “deeply disturbed” she was that representatives from the evil Oriental Empire would be participating. “The regime in Beijing has a fundamentally different attitude to the West about AI, seeing it as a means of state control and a tool for national security.”
Seeing the Middle Kingdom was uniquely disposed to technological manipulation – because liberal democratic governments apparently have no interest in using AI for reasons of controlling their subjects – she failed to see how any “reasonable person” could expect “China to abide by anything agreed at this kind of summit given their cavalier attitude to international law.”
Sunak, to his credit, showed some mettle in parrying such suggestions. In a speech delivered on October 26, he owned up to his belief that China needed to be invited. “I know there are some who will say they should have been excluded. But there can be no serious strategy for AI without at least trying to engage all of the world’s leading AI powers.”
Despite this, Sunak was hardly going to give Beijing unfettered access to each and every event. Some minor form of segregation would still be maintained. As UK Deputy Prime Minister Oliver Dowden stated with strained hospitality, “There are some sessions where we have like-minded countries working together, so it might not be appropriate for China to join.” Largely because of that sentiment, Chinese delegates were, for the most part, excluded at public events for the second day of the summit.
From within the summit itself, it was clear that limiting Beijing’s AI role would do little to advance the argument on the development of such technologies. A number of Chinese delegates attending the summit had already endorsed a statement showing even greater concern for the “existential risk” posed by AI than either the Bletchley statement or President Joe Biden’s executive order on AI issued at the end of October. According to the Financial Times, the group, distinguished by such figures as the computer scientist Andrew Yao, are calling for the establishment of “an international regulatory body, the mandatory registration and auditing of advanced AI systems, the inclusion of instant ‘shutdown’ procedures and for developers to spend 30 per cent of their research budget on AI safety.”
For the Sinophobe lobby, one awkward fact presents itself: China has made giddy strides in the field, having made it a policy priority in its New Generation AI Development Plan in 2017. The policy goes so far as to acknowledge, in many ways providing a foretaste of the Bletchley deliberations, the need to “[s]trengthen research on legal, ethical, and social issues related to AI, and establish laws, regulations and ethical frameworks to ensure the healthy development of AI.” Some of this is bound to be aspirational in the way that other documents of this sort are, but there is at least some acknowledgment of the issue.
Precisely for its progress in the field, China is being punished by that other contender for AI supremacy, the United States. Despite some forced sense of bonhomie among the delegates, such fault lines were nigh impossible to paper over. On October 17, the US Department of Commerce announced that further restrictions would be placed on advanced AI chips along with the imposition of additional licensing requirements for shipments to 40 countries to prevent resales to China. One company, Nvidia, was told directly by the department that it had to immediately cease shipping A800 and H800 chips to the Chinese market without licensed authorisation from the US.
The final Bletchley Declaration opens with the view that AI “presents enormous global opportunities: it has the potential to transform and enhance human wellbeing, and prosperity.” With that in mind, the signatories affirmed “that, for the good of all, AI should be designed, developed, deployed, and used, in a manner that is safe, in such a way as to be human-centric, trustworthy and responsible.” But the vision risks being irreparably fractured, contaminated by such fears so crudely expressed by Truss. The view from the signatories present is that the AI frontier presents ecstatic opportunity and potential calamity. But how that vision is duly realised will depend on what is decided upon and whether those rules will be observed.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
31 comments
Login here Register here-
New England Cocky -
Frank -
Gregory -
A Commentator -
Douglas Pritchard -
corvusboreus -
Douglas Pritchard -
Steve Davis -
Michael Taylor -
Canguro -
Andrew Smith
-
Steve Davis -
Zathras -
leefe -
Steve Davis -
A Commentator -
Steve Davis -
A Commentator -
Steve Davis -
A Commentator -
Steve Davis -
Canguro
-
A Commentator -
Canguro -
Steve Davis -
A Commentator -
Steve Davis -
A Commentator -
Steve Davis -
A Commentator -
Steve Davis
Return to home pageThe Anglosphere, including the Australian LIARBRAL party pursuing Howard’s racist ”thinking”, must recognise that compared to PRC China, the Anglosphere is a past use-by date colonial exploiter that since Brexit has lessening relevance to the world.
.
Even more importantly, the spawned off USA (United States of Apartheid) is also becoming less relevant as American politics descends into total chaos, insuring that ”the American people” are disenfranchised where-ever possible, citizens are denied the government services that identify a successful democracy, and self-interest of multinational corporations, particularly miners, is actively contributing to the ultimate destruction of the world as we know it.
.
I think the US is the most destructive country on the planet,and not to smart either,what do they honestly think China is going to do,they are going to follow Russia program of self efficiency,we have already seen how well they have adapted to all the illegal sanctions put on them by the American dictators,and China is already starting to do the same,before long they will have developed a far superior chip than whats available now,its only a matter of time,by isolating a great power,you yourself may face the time where you are left behind, inclusivity is a win for all the planet
@Frank. Agree 100%. The DSA (Divided States of America) IS the most destructive country in the world and they are the main reason for the western world’s phobia of anyone who looks different or has different values. Their fear speading and smear campaigning of other countries is to cover up their own fears of being knocked off as the planet’s strongest economy and losing their place as the world’s most powerful military force. I for one can’t wait for the day they are brought down to the bottom rung of the ladder. Biggest hypocrites by far.
I’ve said in the past… I’d prefer a world without superpowers. But since we have them I’m glad one is a (flawed) western democracy.
It would be an even more brutal place if it was left to the CCP and Putin regimes to carve up their spheres of influence, without challenge.
I am constantly reminded of a fact from WW2.
When allied troops were landed on the shores of France they were using machine guns that went rat…rat…..rat.
There were told they had the best the west could provide.
But, to their amazement the German Guns went br,br br. Twice the fire power.
An unfortunate time to realise that you have been fed BS.
Douglas,
It is surprising to hear (as a fact) that the allied troops landing on Normandy were surprised at the high cyclic rate of German GPMGs compared to their own Brens and BARs.
The allies had regularly encountered (and captured) MG34s since the invasion of Norway, and, since first noticing the MG42 ‘cloth-ripper’ when it appeared in North Africa, had been encountering (and capturing) it regularly throughout their advance across Sicily and Italy.
Since preparatory training prior to operation Overlord included a course of basic familiarisation with standard issue enemy weaponry (including squad MGs), I doubt that most allied troops boarded the landing barges thinking they had man-portable MG firepower superiority (yet board they did).
CB,
Thanks. This is just another example of the mind numbing stuff that I have accumulated over a life that has gone on for far too long.
But ,more, its a reminder to be pretty bloody careful when someone plants a gun in your hands, and tells you to use it.
They may be feeding you nonsense
(The UK bren gun is a piece of pure art, and a joy to deploy)
One of the key points from the article is; “Precisely for its progress in the field, China is being punished by that other contender for AI supremacy, the United States.”
That is how the US operates, as noted by NEC, Frank, and Greg.
Competition is supposed to be one of the cherished icons of liberal economics, but they do not cherish it at all. The detest it, they despise it, and they fear it. They do all they can to eliminate it.
AC does not agree.
AC is happy that in a world of several superpowers he’s “glad one is a (flawed) western democracy.” He’s said this more than once, so he must be really, really glad.
He always puts “flawed” in brackets. Why the brackets? Is he suggesting it’s flawless? Or is he admitting flaws but appealing to xenophobia by hinting that Western flaws are superior to, I dunno, those devious outsiders’ flaws perhaps.
Let’s look at it.
Is the invasion of Syria and the theft of Syrian oil the actions of a flawed democracy?
Or the theft of Iran’s oil on the high seas? (aka piracy)
Or the destruction of Iraq based on a deliberate lie?
Or the illegal secret bombing of Laos and Cambodia?
Or the re-establishment of opium production in Afghanistan?
Or the establishment of the School of the Americas, an advanced training academy for assassination and torture?
Or attempts at regime change all over the world? (at least 64 during the Cold War alone, some say 72)
Or the illegal use of illegal economic sanctions that kill children? (against 20 countries atm.)
Or the bombing of 33 countries since ww2?
Or 251 military interventions since 1991?
The US is not a flawed democracy. It’s a predator.
An oldie but a goodie;
Q: Why will there never be a coup d’état in Washington?
A: Because there’s no American embassy there.
Douglas, in my first year in officer training we were told that in WW2 the Germans had a machine gun that was 40 years ahead of its time. Even in 1982 it hadn’t been replicated.
Steve Davis, adding an intensifier or two might get a bit closer to the truth than AC’s simplistic notion of the acceptability of a ‘flawed’ democracy:
For example:
a very flawed democracy
a hugely flawed democracy
an extremely flawed democracy
an irrevocably corrupted flawed democracy
a criminally corrupted flawed democracy
a machiavellian and paranoid flawed democracy
a hubristically inclined flawed democracy
a cabalistic and economically predatorial flawed democracy
a thieving and murderous flawed democracy
a racist and soulless flawed democracy
an antidemocratic and autocratically inclined flawed democracy
I’m sure there’s more, but these few examples, all verifiable, put to rest any notion of America being the leader of the free world and a worthy ally that is the best choice in respect of cuddling up to in times of need and assistance.
On the article itself, wasn’t Musk central to this faux AI summit held by Sunak? Musk like others likes China very much for its authoritarian government as few regulatory barriers on labour, consumer protection, environment etc.
Overall, one thinks the angst directed at ‘America’ may or can be misplaced by conflating GOP, Koch Network fossil fueled donor architecture of influence inc white Conservative Christians and media, led by Murdoch into ‘America’, making an easy target for self gratification?
However, this ignores how Australian society, for now, adopt even more American culture (vs. British, while Eurasian moves in), innovation and unfortunately, all the aforementioned features except it’s LNP, not GOP; maybe Australians should do more than follow media narratives and become more involved vs following.
Conversely, as exemplified by some commenters, follow the anti-US agitprop based on 20thC or cold war prisms, blamed for everything, but averting their gaze from malignant actors like the above in the Anglosphere, and to an extent Europe, but works especially well for e.g. Putin who is apparently obsessed about the US and survival of his own corrupt nativist authoritarian regime.
Good example has been Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (operations in Syria too*) and Anglosphere talking points of the (faux) anti-imperialist ‘tankies’ of the left (Draitser, CounterPunch) blaming the victim i.e. Ukraine through proxies of NATO, EU, US/Biden etc., that concurs with transnational Anglo RWNJs, GOP, Koch Network academic grifters, Murdoch FoxNews hosts & PM ‘mini Putin’ Orban?
Does anyone ever twig at the contradictions and if sometimes they are being led on by sentiments and beliefs? Too easy….
*Grayzone inc. Aaron Mate & Max Blumenthal, cooperated with Russia, targeting the ‘White Helmets’ NGO in Syria when the latter highlighted Assad’s chemical attacks on his own citizens (and of late ignored by many pro-Palestinian supporters in the west), called out by Draitser at CP and Guardian explains:
‘Network of Syria conspiracy theorists identified – study. Campaign disseminating disinformation sent thousands of tweets, often targeting the White Helmets, research finds. A network of more than two dozen conspiracy theorists, frequently backed by a coordinated Russian campaign, sent thousands of disinformation tweets to distort the reality of the Syrian conflict and deter intervention by the international community, new analysis says.’
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/19/russia-backed-network-of-syria-conspiracy-theorists-identified
Grayzone and individual players cited are also on Vatnik Soup list:
‘In today’s #vatnik soup I’ll introduce one of the biggest disinformation and propaganda blogs on the web: The Grayzone. It’s best known for misleading reporting, disinformation and love of authoritarian regimes and dictators’
One just find that many narratives in Australia are not so substantive if you look deeper into any issue; the point of our media?
Canguro — that made my day!
Humour with truth — the very best type of humour.
When it comes to Musk, having Sunak assume the role of interviewer implies that Musk is somehow more important or perhaps Sunak is simply auditioning for work post-politics. No doubt some form of AI is already being used in ways we can’t imagine and any hope of imposing voluntary limits is laughable.
The thing that amazes me most about history is that the Good Guys always seem to win. What are the odds?
” … a fundamentally different attitude to the West about AI, seeing it as a means of state control … ”
Cognitive dissonance, thy name is Truss.
Andrew Smith has outdone himself here.
He said; “Overall, one thinks the angst directed at ‘America’ may or can be misplaced by conflating GOP, Koch Network fossil fueled donor architecture of influence inc white Conservative Christians and media, led by Murdoch into ‘America’, making an easy target for self gratification?”
He has created a straw-man argument. He is saying that those who have genuine concerns about US crimes may, or may not, be conflating all his personal pet hates into a single entity, “America”, in order to vent their anger at one target. To state this without evidence is pointless self-indulgence. To state it, then argue against this conflating that never happened, is reprehensible.
Then, as is his wont, Andrew mentioned all his pet hates for the umpteenth time, pet hates that have no obvious link to the article, and concluded with this earth-shattering sentence; “ One just find(s) that many narratives in Australia are not so substantive if you look deeper into any issue; the point of our media?”
So, a big thank-you to Andrew for telling us what every author and commenter here has been saying forever.
SD speculates about my use of brackets – “(flawed) democracy”. He then proceeds to create a speculative and straw man argument.
Perhaps if he read beyond his comfort zone he might be familiar with the democracy index.
That’s the status of the US. A “flawed democracy”
Where do his preferred superpowers governed by the Putin regime and the CCP rank?
While I’ve repeatedly said I’d prefer a multi polar world with increasing prestige and influence for Brazil, Japan, the EU, India… SD can’t see past his preference for the most autocratic of regimes
AC’s reluctance to engage with my argument that the US is a predator state is understandable, given his attachment to the US.
He states that my argument is speculative. There’s nothing speculative about the list of US crimes. They are on record.
There’s nothing speculative about the comfort he finds in the existence of a rogue superpower. That’s also on record.
There’s nothing speculative about the US engaging in 218 military interventions from 1798 to 1990, (1.1 per year) then dramatically increasing that rate to 251 (7.8 per year) and counting. Why the sudden increase in 1991? That’s the very year that the US became the sole military superpower, with no other power capable of keeping it in check. Speculative? Possibly. We will never know.
But the list of US interventions, theft and piracy does tell us that the US is a predator state.
Hypocrisy – condemning in the US what you support in Russia.
And… you assign a view to me and demand that I argue it!
You’re supporting greater international influence and prestige for the Putin and CCP regimes.
I can’t see that makes the world a safer or kinder place
Supporting greater influence for Brazil, Japan, India, the EU does .
AC said “you assign a view to me and demand that I argue it!”
I assigned nothing.
It has been AC that has expressed comfort with one world superpower being a flawed democracy. I argued that the flawed democracy he has in mind is actually a predator state, and gave evidence for that position. That he chose to not defend his view is a reflection on him.
Nonsense
I’ve said-
* I’d prefer that there were no superpowers
* But since we have them, I’m glad it’s not just up to Putin and Xi to carve up their spheres of influence.
* I support a multi polar world
You choose to ignore what I say.
You support authoritarian regimes, and seek to increase their international influence.
When the first few comments to this article were highly critical of the US, AC rushed to defend the US with a deliberately nebulous statement of approval. He has found that vague and woolly is not immune to criticism.
When I gave evidence that AC’s preferred superpower is a rogue state he had two reasonable options — counter the argument or change his mind. He has done neither.
He cannot counter the argument because the evidence is clear. The US is a predator state.
He still can, however, change his mind.
The orange-hued contender hoping to return to the presidential role come the next American election has been metaphorically rapped over his little knuckles for using provocative language. Who’d have guessed it! Donny? Never… gosh, to his faithful he’s a guy who carefully chooses the words he uses… honing the thoughts down to the essential expression of truths that need airing.
Here’s what brought on the tut-tutting and knuckle rapping… and note the placards being waved by the drones rounded up to act as the backdrop. ‘Peace through Strength’. How quaint the notion. How inane. How meaningless.
Business as usual, in the flawed but acceptable democracy.
SD rushed in with speculation about my use of “(flawed) democracy”, not even having an understanding of the use of the term in the democray index.
He then proceeded to assign an opinion to me, that he requires me to defend.
He even neglects to deal with the specific issue I raised- what would the world be a better place if it was left to Putin and Xi to carve up their spheres of influence?
The expression, ‘spheres of Influence’ frequently appears within the language used in the ongoing contretemps between two of the contributors on this website. Perhaps it’s useful to nail down its meaning.
Wikipedia defines it thusly: “…a sphere of influence is a spatial region or concept division over which a state or organization has a level of cultural, economic, military or political exclusivity.
Britannica has the following: “…the claim by a state to exclusive or predominant control over a foreign area or territory. The term may refer to a political claim to exclusive control, which other nations may or may not recognize as a matter of fact, or it may refer to a legal agreement by which another state or states pledge themselves to refrain from interference within the sphere of influence.”
It seems questionable whether the term is being used in its correct context; as per the continued references to the nations of Russia & China, neither of which would appear to fall within the ambit of that particular phraseology.
Canguro, thanks for the clarification of spheres of influence.
AC has stated that I have neglected to deal with his “whatabout” question — would the world be a better place if Russia and China were left to carve up their spheres of influence. AC would love the discussion to proceed on that line because it allows him to escape the reality that the US is a predator state.
But there’s a reason I neglected to answer. Such questions are pointless. Questions as to future outcomes are not matters that can be determined. Aspirations are legitimate; conjecture and speculation are pointless.
Past outcomes however, are a different story.
Unfortunately for AC’s negative view of Russia and China for which he has given no evidence, the historical record shows that the US is the greatest threat to world safety, by a country mile.
We can even throw in the Russian intervention in Ukraine, China’s border skirmishes with India and confrontations in the South China Sea, and no-one comes anywhere near the US record for invasion, regime change, training assassins and torturers, high seas piracy, breaking treaties, theft of oil, funding terrorist groups, using drugs as currency, deliberately killing children by use of sanctions… Shall I go on?
The US is a predator state.
Once again I have to point out that SD replied to my comment, but then seeks to dictate the terms of my opinion, reply and engagement.
I’ve outlined my preference for a multi polar world.
I’ve referred to the US as a “(flawed) democracy” consistent with its status according to the democracy index.
It is a term SD has sought to inaccuracy or ignorantly speculate about.
SD is unable to demonstrate that the world is a happier and safer place with his preference for the unchallenged ascendancy of the autocratic Putin and CCP regimes
AC says I am unable to demonstrate that the world would be a happier and safer place with my “preference for the unchallenged ascendancy of the autocratic Putin and CCP regimes.” Gee,I’d love to challenge him to produce the quote from me that backs that up, but he would drag that out forever. This already feels like forever.
That said, he’s right in one respect. I cannot say what the world would be like with Russia and China unchallenged. Because unlike AC, I cannot predict the future. Unlike AC, I cannot read minds. And unlike AC, I can read history. My reading of history tells me that the US is a predator state.
We finally have SD agree that there is no assurance that the world would be safer and happier with his preference for the unchallenged ascendance of the Putin and CCP regimes.
It seems we should accept him at his word
He must know more than all the former Warsaw Pact signatories that now oppose the Putin regime, more than Taiwan, that has observed the brutal suppression of the democray advocates in Hong Kong, more than even Vietnam that seeks closer relations with the US.
Take the word of Steve, and ignore the deeply held anxieties of the counties that are adjacent to the Putin and CCP regimes.
Dear oh dear. AC has committed a rookie error.
He had a response prepared for an answer I did not give.
As a result, the bulk of his response has no connection to my answer.
I said I know nothing of the future, to which he responded that therefore I must know more than blah blah blah …
I don’t know where AC got his degree in mind-reading, but he should demand his money back.
The Russia connection reminded me of the time he demanded an explanation for a statement I made about Russia that took place only in his head.
Russophobia. It’s a very troubling malady with disturbing symptoms.
You continue to own up to exactly what I said-
“I cannot say what the world would be like with Russia and China unchallenged”
“You continue to own up to exactly what I said …”
Errr…yes.