News China's AI model glut is a 'significant waste of resources' due to scarce real-world applications says Baidu CEO

Publicly available LLMs in China need to go through regulatory approval in China, to ensure that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can effectively control the Chinese people.

When we do it, it's regulation and making sure that LLMs don't output stuff we don't like. When the chinese do it, it's obviously for nefarious authoritarian purposes.

Even western propaganda must admit that chinese people are more satisfied with their governement than the people in the west of theirs.

Democracy Perception Index

As I said already, if you think that the west is escalading sanctions & tariffs because somehow the chinese products and R&D are inferior, you don't want to understand, really.

It's because the west can't compete.

It's pretty obvious, except for the hooligan-level nationalists.

So now, because in the west we value so much freedom of speech and the exchange of ideas, and are not complete hypocrites, fire away the censorship or the shadow banning. 🤣
 
Last edited:
I feel this is not just a problem in China. The problem is that companies have not figured out how to capitalize on AI, and due to FOMO, rushed out to grab whatever AI hardware just to show how impressive they are. ChatGPT is useful for example, but how many people will use the paid version of it? I think the number is not going to be high, relative to the sunk cost and overhead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thestryker
Not gonna pretend that the chinese government is totally innocent, but the assertion that them having an approval process for AI models is so they can "control the Chinese population" is such a wild thing to see in an otherwise neutral news article, especially since it's not backed up with any evidence or supporting arguments within the article—it feels like a complete non-sequitur. Doubly so because this is a site that has posted multiple op-eds calling for stricter regulation of AI in the west. But when China does it, it's presented as a fact that it's for authoritarian control reasons? C'mon on, man. That kind of statement has no place in a neutral news article. The author should consider submitting an op-ed about it instead, and the EIC should stress to their newswriters that they shouldn't be inserting their personal political opinions into news stories as fact.
 
I'll make a slightly off-topic diatribe, following the out of place, strongly opinionated remark in the article that should be in an editorial and not in a factual article.

Note that the perceived democracy is not equal to actual democracy - thus why France is in the red in that report, when it is an actual democracy where China isn't (and the US, not exactly).
However, while the central government in Beijing isn't elected democratically (far from it), actual local administrators often are named by consensus - and THEY are the people that are perceived as impacting people's day to day life. So, while the PCC has an iron grip on people's lives, their representatives have quite a lot of power while remaining somewhat close to the people.
In France, it's the opposite and it's getting worse : the government is elected democratically, but they are perceived (and prove themselves daily) as being completely disconnected from the country, especially outside Paris - thus, a perception that political leaders are completely unconcerned by the people they're supposed to administer.

In the article, a quick shortcut is taken to indicate a model has to be PCC approved to be used so as to control the population - mainly, that the model won't say anything bad about the PCC. Well, the exact same thing can be said about censoring models in the West, they're all based on US "decency" standards - when those don't apply to the rest of the world (e.g., kicking a picture out because there's a NIPPLE on it?! Come ON !!!)

Two weights, two measures. Who's to say which one is right ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: zsydeepsky