I have now read the article (which OP didn’t link to), and it does indeed seem like this narrative was unfounded and I was right. I could not find any support for eugenics in the article, and the interviewees even spoke against it explicitly.
You should read the article yourself, it’s actually quite insightful.
“If more people like us don’t have children, the world will stop seeing innovation and economic prosperity. It’s very important that the right people reproduce.”
I have now read the article, and what you just quoted is nowhere to be found. I would really like to know where you found the text you quoted.
In fact, neither the article nor the interviewees defended eugenics, at all. They even addressed the issue explicitly near the end of the text.
I’m not defending these people, or saying that they are saints, but there was no indication that they were supporting eugenics. To the contrary, they spoke against it.
I haven’t read the article. Maybe they were just saying “more children are needed and we’re doing our part”. I’m not sure of this is really about them being arrogant. It could be either or.
That clearly doesn’t work, lol.
We don’t have enough wolves.
I’m not interested in reading propaganda. Give me something that benefits me as a reader.
What technical changes has made these Chinese models more cost-effective? Less reliance on parallelism? Less reliance on memory? Custom hardware? Availability of training data?
There are no details in the article. It doesn’t even benefit investors.