more that the “explanation” being about birth rates is an easy, consumable and somewhat ironic concept that the western palate will eat up. not fucking true tho.
From what I can see (and via translation), their published reasoning is, among other reasons, to protect national security and social interests.
So what are the risks that China is worried about to social interests? Well, we can find that in their AI Safety Governance Framework. Jumping specifically to the risks regarding anthropomorphic AIs (ethical risks):
(d) Addiction and dependence on anthropomorphic interaction
AI products based on anthropomorphic interaction foster users’ emotional dependence and influence their behavior, creating ethical risks.
They conveniently list some of their concerned outcomes from influencing their behavior, including disrupting conventional views on childbirth:
(e) Challenges to existing social order
The development and application of AI brings profound changes to production tools and relations, accelerating the restructuring of traditional industries, disrupting conventional views on employment, childbirth, and education, and challenging the established social order.
So did China ban these AIs over birth rates? It seems to have been part of the discussion, at the very least. Like all things in life, it requires more nuance than just “birth rates” to explain. However, the concerns stated by Matt Sheehan (who seems to be the source for the “birth rates” claim that the news outlets are going with) provides more nuance in his explanation as well:
“They don’t like the idea of a large portion of their population being in deep emotional relationships with chatbots that could take them out of the marriage market, that could have negative psychological impacts on them, that could lead to addiction, dependency and a whole bunch of other social ills,” said Matt Sheehan, who studies Chinese AI at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a think tank.
All this to say that yes, the explanation that it’s about birth rates is an easy to consume concept for Western audiences.
But also, yes it’s a true concern that the Chinese government has specifically linked to anthropomorphic AIs.
So… China didn’t ban relationship bots? Or are you saying that the article is written in a way to condemn China’s decision to ban them?
more that the “explanation” being about birth rates is an easy, consumable and somewhat ironic concept that the western palate will eat up. not fucking true tho.
From what I can see (and via translation), their published reasoning is, among other reasons, to protect national security and social interests.
So what are the risks that China is worried about to social interests? Well, we can find that in their AI Safety Governance Framework. Jumping specifically to the risks regarding anthropomorphic AIs (ethical risks):
They conveniently list some of their concerned outcomes from influencing their behavior, including disrupting conventional views on childbirth:
So did China ban these AIs over birth rates? It seems to have been part of the discussion, at the very least. Like all things in life, it requires more nuance than just “birth rates” to explain. However, the concerns stated by Matt Sheehan (who seems to be the source for the “birth rates” claim that the news outlets are going with) provides more nuance in his explanation as well:
All this to say that yes, the explanation that it’s about birth rates is an easy to consume concept for Western audiences.
But also, yes it’s a true concern that the Chinese government has specifically linked to anthropomorphic AIs.