Three Reasons Why China is Indifferent to AI Apocalypse Theories – NYT

The narrative of apocalypse is influenced by Western Christianity... there is a disconnect with Eastern culture.

Confidence in controlling AI within a socialist system... experience with internet censorship.

Fear-mongering by American companies raises suspicions of 'containing Chinese AI firms'.

[Block Media Reporter Lee Jeong-hwa] "The theory of artificial intelligence (AI) apocalypse resembles a 21st-century Frankenstein. It does not align with Eastern sentiment or narratives."

Analysts suggest that China's skepticism towards AI speed control theories or apocalyptic narratives stems from its cultural and social systems being different from the West.

The New York Times (NYT) reported on the 27th (local time) in a weekend feature article that "China does not deny the risks of AI, but is taking a different approach to the argument that development speed should be slowed down." The article was written by Lily Kuo, a correspondent based in Taipei, Taiwan.

The reasons for China's skepticism towards AI speed control can be broadly categorized into three pillars: cultural background, a socialist system based on strong state control, and the AI hegemony competition between the US and China.

Cultural Aspect... The 'Frankenstein Fear' of the West Does Not Exist in the East

The first reason presented by the NYT is the cultural difference in viewing AI. The apocalyptic narrative in the West is based on the idea that humans create beings superior to themselves and are ultimately destroyed by their own creations. This narrative is closely related to biblical eschatology, where there is a distinction between the realm of God and that of humans.

Mary Shelley's novel 'Frankenstein' is cited as a representative example. It tells the story of humans challenging the divine realm of life creation and paying the price for the consequences. In China, this narrative tradition is relatively weak.

Fang Liang, head of AI safety and governance at Concordia, an AI safety consulting firm in Beijing, stated, "In China, there is a concept of 'Tianren He Yi' (天人合一), which views humans not as separate from nature but as part of it."

He explained that "everything, including AI, comes from nature," and that technology is seen not as an external force that destroys humanity but as something that coexists with humans.

Therefore, the narrative raised in the West that "humans can create intelligence that they cannot control and may ultimately be destroyed by it" may not resonate emotionally in China.

Socialist System... "If the internet can be controlled, why not AI?"

The second reason is China's political and social system. The core of American AI safety theories is the assumption that AI could at some point escape human control. However, the NYT reported that in China, the very idea that the Communist Party could lose control over technology is hard to imagine.

The Chinese government has already exercised strong control over the internet. During the COVID-19 pandemic, it demonstrated its administrative power by locking down entire cities and tracking the movements of millions through a digital surveillance system.

Afra Wang, who studies Chinese technology, stated that the Chinese government has the physical control to immediately cut off the power grid of an entire city and even seize people's mobile phones if necessary.

From this perspective, the fear in Silicon Valley that "humans will not be able to control AI operating within computers" may be difficult to intuitively accept in China.

In fact, China is not neglecting AI but is regulating it strongly. AI-generated content is required to be labeled, and AI models must be registered and approved by authorities before being made public. Recently, Chinese authorities have also begun to officially warn about the potential for AI's 'recursive self-improvement' and extreme loss of control.

They are also preparing for the risks of AI being misused in cyber attacks or biological weapon development. In other words, China's logic is closer to 'if AI is dangerous, the state can control it' rather than 'AI is safe'.

Competition with the West... "AI Safety Theories are Fear Marketing to Slow Down China"

The third and more pragmatic reason is the US-China AI hegemony competition. In China, there is a perspective that views the AI speed control theories advocated by American companies and experts not as pure safety discussions but as strategies to slow down China's technological catch-up.

According to the NYT, Chinese media have also claimed that American AI companies engage in 'fear marketing' to maintain their market leadership. Chai Jie, who studied human-computer interaction and AI safety at Tsinghua University, noted that many in the Chinese industry show little interest in discussions about existential risks of AI.

He explained, "We still see AI as being in a very early stage," and that the current focus is on opportunities and innovation.

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei's strong criticism of China has also fueled this distrust. Amodei argued that democratic countries should maintain an advantage in AI technology over authoritarian countries like China and called for additional restrictions on China's access to advanced semiconductors and AI equipment.

Within China's AI safety community, there have been criticisms that such statements have a counterproductive effect. If the US argues on one hand that "AI is too dangerous, so let's slow down development" while on the other hand claiming that "advanced AI semiconductors should not be given to China," it can be interpreted by China as a logic to maintain a technological gap under the guise of AI safety.

Chinese cybersecurity entrepreneur Zhou Hongyi instead argued for "using AI to combat AI." If the opponent attacks with AI, one should defend with AI, and if the opponent deploys AI agents, one should counter with security agents.

Ultimately, the issue of AI safety in China tends to be interpreted as a technological competition of 'who can secure the ability to respond to dangerous AI faster' rather than 'should we develop or stop'.

In summary, China's skepticism towards AI speed control theories is a result of the intersection of three factors. Culturally, there is relatively weak empathy for the Western 'Frankenstein narrative' that humans are destroyed by the technologies they create. Politically, there is a perception that technological risks can be managed through strong state control. Geopolitically, there is suspicion that American AI safety theories are an industrial and security strategy to slow down China's catch-up.

Chinese authorities and researchers are also warning about the possibilities of AI self-replication, cyber attacks, biological weapon misuse, and extreme loss of control. The difference lies in the approach to the risks. The emphasis is more on 'the state should control and regulate while simultaneously developing technology and defensive capabilities' rather than the American call to 'slow down'.

This content is provided for general informational purposes only and doesn't constitute financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Any events, rewards, online promotions, or related information mentioned herein should not be considered a recommendation, solicitation, or invitation to purchase, sell, trade, or otherwise deal in any crypto assets. Crypto assets are highly volatile and may result in loss. The availability of WEEX services, products, and related events may vary by region. You are responsible for ensuring that your participation is in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations.