@suchenzang @willdepue Encourage good security?
@Miles_Brundage @willdepue with all due respect, it's pretty disappointing to see you encouraging this, miles
Brundage questioned the critic's security goals while Depue invited feedback
@suchenzang @willdepue Encourage good security?
@Miles_Brundage @willdepue with all due respect, it's pretty disappointing to see you encouraging this, miles
Some users agree Miles Brundage's China AI security clarification highlights valid government coercion risks, while others dismiss his good security framing as inadequate and see CCP references as political cover.
No Digg Deeper questions have been answered for this story yet.
@suchenzang @willdepue Is the concern “China” vs. “the Chinese government”? Agree that could have been framed more precisely, though I took Will to mean the latter
@Miles_Brundage @willdepue > china has full access
"good security" hardly covers that first key phrase

@Miles_Brundage @willdepue > china has full access
"good security" hardly covers that first key phrase

@Miles_Brundage @willdepue no, it's about individual employees here and has always been
saying it's "ccp" is just political cover

@suchenzang @willdepue Or like Sinophobia re: researchers at said companies? I don’t think one need have such attitudes to worry about IP theft from the most cyber capable/IP theft-y state with a strong interest in AI

@Miles_Brundage @suchenzang @willdepue This distinction doesn't matter the question is whether lab secrets are actually being exfiltrated at any significant rate

Ah I see (honestly just getting back from an East coast trip so v tired, not trying to be obtuse)
I think that is one of multiple factors one might worry about in this context, forgot it was emphasized here, but I do agree it is one of the risk vectors, not bc of people being badly motivated but due to coercion risks