I think the answer there is clear ;)
What matters is that US media and the government are siding with OpenAI on this. The legal system in the US is taking the side of OpenAI against the people whose content they stole, and it will also take the side of OpenAI when it comes to demands to band competition like DeepSeek.
15
Battle for Pokrovsk: The Ukraine that city could be the most important of the war
(www.independent.co.uk)
65
Nine nations aim to hold Israel accountable for crimes against humanity and implement arms embargo
(peoplesdispatch.org)
25
The FAA is facing a major crisis without a leader because Elon Musk pushed him out
(www.theverge.com)
I mean come on, what could possibly go wrong
It seems that the goal is to make it so prohibitively expensive to import things that it opens up niches to start producing them domestically. It will necessarily drive prices up in the near term, but it's also not clear that it would achieve the desired effect long term either. Traditionally, the kinds of investments that would be needed require state involvement, and so far my impression is that they're just going to leave it to private business and hope that magic happens.
Soviets also played a big role in helping India achieve independence which is one major reason why relations between India and Russia are so good to this day. https://actofdefiance.wordpress.com/2022/09/05/soviet-support-for-indian-independence/
The fundamental disagreement lies in your shameful ignorance of the subject you're attempting to provide opinions on. Modern China is a socialist state where the working class holds power, but capitalist relations have not yet been abolished. That's what socialism is, it's a transitional state between capitalism and communism.
90% of families in the country own their home giving China one of the highest home ownership rates in the world. What’s more is that 80% of these homes are owned outright, without mortgages or any other leans. https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2016/03/30/how-people-in-china-afford-their-outrageously-expensive-homes
Chinese household savings hit another record high in 2024 https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-dow-jones-bank-earnings-01-12-2024/card/chinese-household-savings-hit-another-record-high-xqyky00IsIe357rtJb4j
People in China enjoy high levels of social mobility https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/18/world/asia/china-social-mobility.html
The typical Chinese adult is now richer than the typical European adult https://www.businessinsider.com/typical-chinese-adult-now-richer-than-europeans-wealth-report-finds-2022-9
Real wage (i.e. the wage adjusted for the prices you pay) has gone up 4x in the past 25 years, more than any other country. This is staggering considering it's the most populous country on the planet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw8SvK0E5dI
The real (inflation-adjusted) incomes of the poorest half of the Chinese population increased by more than four hundred percent from 1978 to 2015, while real incomes of the poorest half of the US population actually declined during the same time period. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23119/w23119.pdf
From 1978 to 2000, the number of people in China living on under $1/day fell by 300 million, reversing a global trend of rising poverty that had lasted half a century (i.e. if China were excluded, the world’s total poverty population would have risen) https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/China%E2%80%99s-Economic-Growth-and-Poverty-Reduction-Angang-Linlin/c883fc7496aa1b920b05dc2546b880f54b9c77a4
From 2010 to 2019 (the most recent period for which uninterrupted data is available), the income of the poorest 20% in China increased even as a share of total income. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.DST.FRST.20?end=2019&%3Blocations=CN&%3Bstart=2008
By the end of 2020, extreme poverty, defined as living on under a threshold of around $2 per day, had been eliminated in China. According to the World Bank, the Chinese government had spent $700 billion on poverty alleviation since 2014. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/31/world/asia/china-poverty-xi-jinping.html
Over the past 40 years, the number of people in China with incomes below $1.90 per day – the International Poverty Line as defined by the World Bank to track global extreme poverty– has fallen by close to 800 million. With this, China has contributed close to three-quarters of the global reduction in the number of people living in extreme poverty. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/lifting-800-million-people-out-of-poverty-new-report-looks-at-lessons-from-china-s-experience
None of these things happen in capitalist states, and we can make a direct comparison with India which follows capitalist path of development. In fact, without China there practically would be no poverty reduction happening in the world.
If we take just one country, China, out of the global poverty equation, then even under the $1.90 poverty standard we find that the extreme poverty headcount is the exact same as it was in 1981.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/07/5-myths-about-global-poverty
The $1.90/day (2011 PPP) line is not an adequate or in any way satisfactory level of consumption; it is explicitly an extreme measure. Some analysts suggest that around $7.40/day is the minimum necessary to achieve good nutrition and normal life expectancy, while others propose we use the US poverty line, which is $15.
https://www.cgdev.org/blog/12-things-we-can-agree-about-global-poverty
As a result, even as mainstream western media openly admits, Chinese government enjoys broad public trust and support:
- https://www.newsweek.com/most-china-call-their-nation-democracy-most-us-say-america-isnt-1711176
- https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2021/0218/Vilified-abroad-popular-at-home-China-s-Communist-Party-at-100
- https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-06-26/which-nations-are-democracies-some-citizens-might-disagree
- https://web.archive.org/web/20230511041927/https://6389062.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/6389062/Canva%20images/Democracy%20Perception%20Index%202023.pdf
- https://www.tbsnews.net/world/china-more-democratic-america-say-people-98686
- https://web.archive.org/web/20201229132410/https://en.news-front.info/2020/06/27/studies-have-shown-that-china-is-more-democratic-than-the-united-states-russia-is-nearby-and-ukraine-is-at-the-bottom/
The term authoritarianism is utterly meaningless because all governments rely on coercion to maintain their authority. The state is fundamentally an instrument that's used by the ruling class to maintain its dominance. The whole notion that political systems can be neatly categorized into authoritarian or democratic binaries is deeply infantile.
The reality is that every government derives its authority from its monopoly on legal violence. The ability to enforce laws, suppress dissent, and maintain order is derived from control over police, military, and judicial systems. Whether a government is labelled authoritarian or democratic, the fundamental basis of its power lies here. Therefore, the only meaningful questions to ask are which class interests it represents, and to what extent can it be held accountable to them.
What ultimately matters is which class controls the institutions of state violence. In capitalist democracies, the government represent the interests of the economic elites who fund political campaigns, own media outlets, and control key industries. Western public lacks the mechanisms necessary to hold the government to account, and the ruling class is disconnected from the broader population. That's precisely what's driving political discontent all across western sphere today. Meanwhile, in so-called authoritarian regimes, the ruling party serves the working class as seen in countries like China, Cuba, or Vietnam. Hence why there is widespread public trust in these government and they enjoy broad support from the masses.
The west fighting with itself while entertaining ambitions of taking on the BRICS will never stop being hilarious.
It's truly remarkable how some people, ensconced in their pretentious self-importance, feel the need to publicly announce what instances they are going to engage with. Nobody cares Vitaly, you're not the main character. 🤣
You're exactly right. Cutting off the global open source development can only result in diminished innovation, and long-term strategic vulnerability. Doing so imposes severe costs on domestic technological progress. This is a similar problem to the one faced by closed-source companies, but at a far greater scale. Open source amortizes the financial burden of research, development, and maintenance across a worldwide community. For example, technologies like Linux are maintained by thousands of developers and organizations globally, reducing costs for all participants. A nation that opts for closed, proprietary systems must shoulder these expenses alone, diverting resources from other sectors such as education and infrastructure. This problem is particularly acute in fast-evolving fields like AI or cybersecurity, where reinventing the wheel is prohibitively expensive. Developers worldwide find bugs, implement features, and adapt tools to new use cases, accelerating progress exponentially.
Countries that engage with open source will have easier time attracting skilled developers and researchers. By contrast, isolationist policies are likely to result in brain drain, as experts migrate to environments where they can collaborate globally. Startups and enterprises also depend on open source to reduce costs and scale rapidly. Restricting access to technology stifles domestic tech ecosystem, putting the country at a disadvantage with its peers.
Another big aspect here is who gets to shape emerging technologies and standards. Nations that participate in these networks gain early access to breakthroughs and will influence the direction of these critical technologies. Projects like RISC-V are already defining the future of their industries. Countries that isolate themselves forfeit this influence, ceding control to foreign entities. Locking industries out of global supply chains will inevitably lead to incompatibilities and make it difficult for these homegrown technologies to compete on the global market.
Ultimately, isolation is a recipe for technological stagnation. Closed systems will always be at a disadvantage compared to open ones. Over time, this will lead to dependence on legacy technologies that will be surpassed by the rest of the world. Meanwhile, open source adopters will continuously evolve, integrating global advancements. In a world where technological leadership determines economic and geopolitical power, cutting oneself off from the global community is suicidal. Open source provides a strategic advantage, enabling countries to pool resources for common prosperity. Those that cut themselves off will face higher costs, slower progress, and irreversible decline in the global race for technological supremacy.