nytimes.com
www.nytimes.com

It’s downright scary to watch this close up. President Trump is focused on what teams American transgender athletes can race on, and China is focused on transforming its factories with A.I. so it can outrace all our factories. Trump’s “Liberation Day” strategy is to double down on tariffs while gutting our national scientific institutions and work force that spur U.S. innovation. China’s liberation strategy is to open more research campuses and double down on A.I.-driven innovation to be permanently liberated from Trump’s tariffs.

The article has a weird assumption that AI would drive innovation but offers a scathing critique of the current US government.

  • chrash0@lemmy.worldEnglish
    54·
    11 hours ago

    why focus on the AI boogeyman? investing in AI is important in this context because it has the potential to increase overall productivity. which, like, don’t we see that as a good thing? also, AI might suck right now, but it’s stupid to think that we should just abandon that research. AI is clearly an innovation, and if you don’t think so it’s time to touch grass.

    • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      6 hours ago

      Profits over productivity. If replacing people with AI, as impractical as it may be, leads to higher profits then CEOs have an obligation to do so. Poverty, sickness, and homelessness are none of their fucking concern.

    • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
      7·
      11 hours ago

      But what makes China’s manufacturing juggernaut so powerful today is not that it just makes things cheaper; it makes them cheaper, faster, better, smarter and increasingly infused with A.I.

      Attention, Kmart shoppers: When you already have a manufacturing engine as powerful and digitally connected as China’s and then you infuse it with A.I. at every level, it’s like injecting a stimulant that can optimize and accelerate every aspect of manufacturing, from design to testing to production.

      Color me skeptical. I’ve no doubt that AI has a lot of great uses and that research on it should continue, but shoving it into everything and as a magic cure-all just isn’t the way to go.

      • chrash0@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        10 hours ago

        i’m definitely not advocating for that. it’s just a bit strange to talk about it like that on a policy level. should the US, as a policy, defund AI research?

          • chrash0@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            10 hours ago

            right so we should continue making smart investments in cutting edge tech, which is probably the point they were trying to make, even if the wording of it is informed by a pop culture zeitgeist more than an understanding of the tech and ethics that are currently being scrutinized as part of the development of what is called “AI”

            • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
              1·
              10 hours ago

              I really doubt that one could have your position and write what I quoted, which does not seem to be related to pop culture at all either