Only China really has the resources (multiple labs invested in the space), culture (Asians are generally collectively-inclined, so sharing is in their core) and political bent (there will be no diplomatic repercussions) to put up a fight.
> Only China really has the resources (multiple labs invested in the space)
That's not the point. Why is it a country thing? There are plenty of non-China startups in this space having resources at that scale. The "China" has resources is some "Western media narrative" speak. So Meta should have won a long time ago? Or xAI?
> culture (Asians are generally collectively-inclined, so sharing is in their core)
Just stereotype it? So we've gone from China -> "Asian"? Then where is your Korean or Japanese model etc? And somehow you know they're sharing.
> political bent (there will be no diplomatic repercussions) to put up a fight
More inferring from "Western media news"?
Where's the reality?
The media hyped up Gemini / Google TPU free-win last year. How did that go?
Because the China vs US geopolitical situation is a thing. Meta is a social media company, not an AI company, and they direct their focus as such. xAI just never got serious traction so now they're selling their compute. Also if a US company were caught distilling, I think Anthropic could actually take them to court, and I'd guess they don't want that kind of PR.
> Just stereotype it?
Is China not Asian? Are Asians not generally collective/cooperative, as opposed to individualistic/competitive?
The "and" that joined those 3 items is very important: it means you can't pull them apart and address them independently as they each contribute to the context. I'm not too sure about Korea, but in a way Japan is a US colony in all but name. Both are very much politically intertwined with the West (along with RoC/Taiwan), which means nothing major that may be against US interest happens.
The reality is that China and the US are essentially in a trade war, where the latter is trying its best to keep the former in the Dark Ages, because "national security", but the former is refusing to take it lying down and continues to make progress regardless[0], because they have the resources and will.
In what way is Japan a "colony" but Germany or any of the other European nations with US bases not?
The SDF is very capable and being "defensive" is a thing the people could vote away whenever they want. It's simply convenient for not being dragged into pointless wars
> Germany or any of the other European nations with US bases not
Never said anything about them as not relevant in the context of this convo. But Germany's Basic Law was also shaped while they were under occupation. Main difference I'd say is the US mostly played a supervisory role there (since it was a collective Allied occupation) rather than the one doing the writing.
> The SDF is very capable[...]
Doesn't really matter; point is the status was forced on them by another, and they can't change that status on their own whether they want to or not. Theoretically, the people could vote it away. Practically, if the US isn't fully on board, there won't even be a vote.
> Main difference I'd say is the US mostly played a supervisory role there
Does it matter? So this is about history. Not today.
Well history says the US came from... so are we going to add that argument? Then none of the places you mentioned are superior to 1 another and the whole argument is moot.
It's more a matter of logic and human nature. The Japanese have been essentially traumatized from being nuked and then being officially occupied by the US for years (unofficially still occupied, given all those military bases). A good amount are against doing anything that'll "rock the boat". General MacAuthor (the guy who led the invasion and occupation of Japan as well as made their Constitution) designed the Constitution so it's extremely difficult to update (need a super majority of the Diet, before a national referendum). A continuous, overt US presence means they can easily apply a little pressure to prevent any Constitutional changes, while any actions without such change would be illegal (and the Japanese are generally sticklers for the law). If there was anything that the US really wanted to change (can't think of anything, since it serves them well as is) they can always start a campaign, perhaps similar to La Tilde[0].
This[1] gives an idea of just how difficult it is to change the Constitution (there have been 0 amendments to date).
I really can't say much about Europe as I haven't done any research about any countries there.
It's a matter of you arguing over semantics. Useless ones too.
The US and in particular, the current president Trump has shown it is all useless. Every government has enough levers and workarounds to make it happen.
Trump has classified the attacks on Iran as "self-defense" so self-defense force, whatever... does it matter?
> and the Japanese are generally sticklers for the law
No, they're not. As usual you just take it at face value and read fake news. Japan's actual prosecution rate is ~30-40%. Post-indictment conviction rate is 99%. Guess why? They fudge the numbers, cheat the system and make it up.
> Because the China vs US geopolitical situation is a thing.
By the media? It's easy to point fingers at a blackhole.
> Meta is a social media company, not an AI company,
Alibaba (the discussion here) is not an AI company too (by your definition).
> Also if a US company were caught distilling, I think Anthropic could actually take them to court, and I'd guess they don't want that kind of PR.
Meta has been to congress. Microsoft, Google etc have been in lots of court cases and continue to do so. Do you really think that is what stops them?
> Is China not Asian? Are Asians not generally collective/cooperative, as opposed to individualistic/competitive?
This is exactly the "media" view you get. It's just stereotypes and generalization.
And yes, that is wrong by the way. Evident in real data. "China" as a whole wins market share in many areas but no 1 company has as much of a monopoly as US companies do. Why? There's so much competition that it is scary. So are you sure they don't compete?
> but in a way Japan is a US colony in all but name
Again, I almost give up seeing this. Clearly, not. If a whole country, the world's top 5 in GDP is only that to you something is wrong with what you're seeing - not with the country.
> Both are very much politically intertwined with the West (along with RoC/Taiwan), which means nothing major that may be against US interest happens
On the table? You do know that China is a top trading partner with all of these on your list. Despite whatever spat you might see in the media.
> The reality is that China and the US are essentially in a trade war
No. That's what the US government wants you to believe. It was even documented that in his 1st term, Trump, wanting a grand policy asked Krushner, whom then suggested China (pretty randomly) and so they went with it. Trump has now done less "China" related things lately due to all the backlash that you'd think he has moved on and found new toys.
Until very recently, the export ban GPUs had such a loophole that Chinese companies were able to use subsidiaries outside of China to buy and train that the whole thing was meaningless.
i.e. conclusion: stop getting brainwashed by media articles. It's all a show to get someone like you riled up.
What is it that you have against the media? If it's bias that you're trying to avoid then it's futile as there's bias everywhere; it's inherently human to be biased. What you do is go for multiple varied sources, with that awareness, find the intersections, and apply your own judgment to your findings.
> Alibaba (the discussion here) is not an AI company too
No, but that doesn't stop them from having an internal AI lab. Meta may not be an AI company but it definitely has a lab. Same for Google (a primarily information retrieval company), and they have a very good AI lab (though part of that is because their primary business benefits greatly from AI, so they must invest heavily in it).
> Do you really think that is what stops them?
I really don't know as I haven't looked into it much; that's mostly speculation on my part.
> It's just stereotypes and generalization
It's a generalization that holds well. I lived among and went to college with Asians (fresh out of Asia) for several years, and during my studies (I have a degree in Cross-Cultural Studies) my focus was Asia, primarily Japan. As such it's something that I've come to learn "from the horses' mouths".
Sure there can be a lot of competition in business and academia (especially in the younger generation), but that happens within a core framework of cooperation (group obligation and social harmony). It's kind of like a race to get the furthest fastest, to then share the secret to that endurance and speed with those who "lost". You only have to take a look at a random sampling of research released publicly, particularly in tech: you will note a predominantly Chinese authorship in general across the board. And it comes back to my original 3 points:
- China has the resources to pour into R&D in any area of interest,
- there may be a lot of competition, but a primarily collectivist/cooperative core means results are shared broadly so everyone can advance, and there are few qualms about taking from others (the West calls this "IP infringement" or something) because ultimately it's an ingrained cultural expectation that such things are available,
- China isn't in bed with (ie controlled by) the US politically (unlike so many other countries in Asia), so they have no problem going against their wishes/culture.
All points together make for a country that can most efficiently - ironically - compete with the US and not be subject to its foreign policies, which scares them to their core and that fear is expressed in the dearth of export controls and other restrictions the US has in place and forces other Western countries to adopt.
> I almost give up seeing this
Are you aware that:
- Japan was invaded and occupied by the US for several years?
- the Constitution that governs Japan today was drawn up by the occupying force during said occupation?
- Japan is forbidden by the US from building a military (with the token offering that they can maintain a "Self Defense Force"; US has promised to "protect" them otherwise)?
- there are over 20 US military bases in Japan?
Do you think there's anything that Japan can do without the allowance of the US? Just imagine if they were to somehow get a public consensus to update that Constitution that's not in the US's interest (will never happen since they're infiltrated at all levels, but still); what do you think would happen if they then started to enact those changes? Think the military at those bases will just sit and idly watch?
> You do know that China is a top trading partner with all of these on your list.
That's irrelevant. The way the world is structured today is that with many countries, trade happens regardless of political rifts and sanctions (which are almost never 100%). For example many EU countries still buy fossil fuels from Russia, which is pretty heavily sanctioned. And regardless of the increasing export controls and sanctions, the China and US economies are pretty interdependent.
>Until very recently[...]
Yes there are and will always be some kind of loophole, because of economic interdependence. One can't fully shut out the other, or do anything that leads to a direct China-US hot war. Just look at the politics at play over RoC/Taiwan. Neither will back down, and neither will do anything first that leads to escalation.
Conclusion: don't dismiss any source outright, but evaluate them carefully. There are always multiple sides to a story, and it's on you to put the pieces together.
Certain outlets aren't clearly reporting but manipulating by paid actors. It's nowhere near the truth. Not even 50% of it.
> I really don't know as I haven't looked into it much; that's mostly speculation on my part.
And I'll stop there. That's 99% of your post. Ungrounded facts. Misguided claims.
You claim you have studied history and maybe that's your bias. History was a long time ago. Back then United Kingdom, i.e. The Great Britain ruled the world too. Are we going to go on about that? The world changed. History doesn't apply. Stop talking about it. So your view of Asians might be old.
It's also just sampling bias. You go to 1 place. See a few "Asians" and it represents a whole continent?
Following your logic I go to 1 restaurant and will claim all American food is terrible based on it.
> That's irrelevant.
You're just blinded and misguided. The end.
> Do you think there's anything that Japan can do without the allowance of the US?
Yes. Iran can do what they want without the allowance of the US. The consequence is military action broke out. But they can. So why can't Japan? All the same. You're mixing logic up.
> Conclusion: don't dismiss any source outright, but evaluate them carefully.
Point them out with your - apparently non-media - sources which prove otherwise.
> You claim you have studied history
You'll have to also point out where I made such a claim. And I'm pretty sure my view of Asians isn't old, as I still communicate with some regularly.
This isn't about going "to 1 place". This is about doing deep related research (secondary sources) over several years and the results of said research for the most part agreeing with experience with and words of the primary sources (those I interacted with over several years). Your restaurant comparison doesn't fly at all.
> So why can't Japan? All the same.
You have everything there. Read the points again. Try to follow the flow; it isn't that hard. I don't see how you can say a country where the US has had continuous military presence for decades and a country where they were afraid/would be ill-advised to send in ground troops are "same" in this context.
> I don't see how you can say a country where the US has had continuous military presence for decades and a country where they were afraid/would be ill-advised to send in ground troops are "same" in this context.
It is the "same". Every country is in striking distance or you can move troops over.
You're speaking like Napoleon or someone? More history lessons? What troops?
These days you can nuke or bomb most places easily. Aircraft carriers, drones, etc. The US has strategic bases everywhere. Inside or outside. No difference. You're 90% arguing over semantics that sound nice on paper. Not so in reality.
Get on with the times.
> And I'm pretty sure my view of Asians isn't old, as I still communicate with some regularly.
That doesn't make it not old. If I speak to my grandfather that never changed for 20 years that's still regularly AND old.
It's not. There are different costs - political, logistical, etc. There would be a very high cost if US troops went into Iran, or just if the war were to continue. Note there are still issues and Iran can/will still close the strait whenever they feel slighted. There's almost no cost if the US wanted to influence Japan as they're already inside.
And it seems you're also against history. So no media for current affairs, and no history for contextualizing current state of affairs. Again, what are your sources for your arguments? So far it's like you're pulling everything out of thin air, with zero support or even basic logic.
Also it wouldn't behoove you to look into Asian attitudes to social interaction, although it'll be difficult if you don't spend some time communicating with some of them, and nigh on impossible if you completely dismiss the history that shaped what is today.
> There's almost no cost if the US wanted to influence Japan as they're already inside.
Then why did Japan need a tariff? That's a cost. If it was as you say you won't need it.
> although it'll be difficult if you don't spend some time communicating with some of them
How do you know I don't? Your problem is your conclusions are all superficial. This includes your continued generalization.
> And it seems you're also against history.
I'm not against history. You've just applied it wrong. History says the Asian you speak so much about has had just as much wars and internal conflicts as you can imagine. So how can you conclude they work together as a social contract. Maybe on the surface.
What is this about and how does it relate to the context here?
> How do you know I don't?
I never made a conclusion whether you do or don't. I only said it'd be difficult to draw an accurate picture if you don't.
> So how can you conclude they work together as a social contract.
It's something that has been studied for decades, and found to continually hold generally (despite increasing Western influence). Here are a few links to help you along in your discovery of Asian collectivist attitudes:
Please, if you're going to continue this, provide decent sources and/or logical reasoning to advance your arguments. Going around in circles is tedious.
