Hide table of contents

Background

Structure 

  • The list is designed as a longlist that can act as a starting point for folks looking to dive deeper into this topic and various sub-topics - it is not a snapshot of the 3 most important readings per topic area
  • The entire list is broken down into key themes
    • Domestic AI Governance
    • International AI Governance
    • Key actors and their views on AI risks
    • AI Inputs
    • Resources to follow
  • We have added in commentary where we felt it would be useful to do so (e.g., we were made aware of potential factual inaccuracies or biased views)
  • Within sections, sources are arranged roughly in order of relevance, not chronology. Sources earlier in a section are more foundational, while later ones are either primary sources that require more context to analyze or older reports/analysis. Sometimes we put related readings next to each other.

Ways to get involved

  • Feel free to suggest additional readings using this form - we’re doing some amount of vetting to prevent the list from ballooning out of control
  • Join the China & Global Priorities Group if you want to be notified about further discussion groups organized 

Caveats around sources and structures 

  • Epistemic status: 
    • This resource list was put together in a voluntary capacity by a group of non-Chinese folks with backgrounds in China Studies and professional work experience on China- and/or AI-related issues. 
    • We spent several hours on resource collection and sense-checked items based on their style, content and methodology. We do not necessarily endorse all of these works as “very good,” but did exclude stuff where we could see that it is obviously low quality.
    • There are many sub-topics where we struggled to find very high-quality material but we still included some publications to give interested readers a start. 
  • We expect that most of our audience will not be able to read Chinese easily or fluently, and as such we have provided many English sources. However, it’s important to remember that gaining a deep and concrete understanding of this space is really hard even with Chinese language skills and lived experience in China, so readers without those skills and experiences should be cautious about forming very strong views based on the select few sources that are included here.
  • Machine translation is useful but imperfect in many ways. 
  • China is not a monolith; sources you read that claim that ‘China does X’ should be treated with caution. Different actors within China have different aims and while it’s true that the party-state has immense power, even the party-state itself is not one thing, but a collection of various entities and of people with their own specific desires and plans.
  • If you are looking to do further research in this space, then treat this list as a starting point for further exploration.
  • For further reading on methodological considerations of doing analysis related to China, you can start with a look at the following links:

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Oliver Guest, Jason Zhou, and Jeffrey Ding for their feedback on earlier drafts of this list. We would also like to acknowledge Aris Richardson and Zach Stein-Perlman, whose reading lists we took inspiration from. 


Compiled by (in no particular order): Gabriel WagnerSaad Siddiqui, Sarah G, and Sarah Weiler

Comments3


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Sinocism is like Zvi's blog, except for China Watchers instead of AI safety. It leans a little towards open source, but it's free and the guy knows the space (though doesn't know everything).

Thanks for mentioning this! I definitely agree that Sinocism is an interesting newsletter to follow if one wants to stay up-to-date on China-related events (from a US perspective). I think it falls outside of what we are considering for this list, since Sinocism only occasionally mentions tech- or AI-related issues and rarely discusses them in-depth (afaik). But I will add this to the list of "potential items to include", which we (the authors of this list) will discuss at regular, but quite spaced-out, intervals (tentative plan, subject to revision if more updates seem needed: annual or maybe semi-annual).

[anonymous]2
1
0
4

This looks fantastic, thanks for putting it together!

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I speak to many entrepreneurial people trying to do a large amount of good by starting a nonprofit organisation. I think this is often an error for four main reasons. 1. Scalability 2. Capital counterfactuals 3. Standards 4. Learning potential 5. Earning to give potential These arguments are most applicable to starting high-growth organisations, such as startups.[1] Scalability There is a lot of capital available for startups, and established mechanisms exist to continue raising funds if the ROI appears high. It seems extremely difficult to operate a nonprofit with a budget of more than $30M per year (e.g., with approximately 150 people), but this is not particularly unusual for for-profit organisations. Capital Counterfactuals I generally believe that value-aligned funders are spending their money reasonably well, while for-profit investors are spending theirs extremely poorly (on altruistic grounds). If you can redirect that funding towards high-altruism value work, you could potentially create a much larger delta between your use of funding and the counterfactual of someone else receiving those funds. You also won’t be reliant on constantly convincing donors to give you money, once you’re generating revenue. Standards Nonprofits have significantly weaker feedback mechanisms compared to for-profits. They are often difficult to evaluate and lack a natural kill function. Few people are going to complain that you provided bad service when it didn’t cost them anything. Most nonprofits are not very ambitious, despite having large moral ambitions. It’s challenging to find talented people willing to accept a substantial pay cut to work with you. For-profits are considerably more likely to create something that people actually want. Learning Potential Most people should be trying to put themselves in a better position to do useful work later on. People often report learning a great deal from working at high-growth companies, building interesting connection
 ·  · 31m read
 · 
James Özden and Sam Glover at Social Change Lab wrote a literature review on protest outcomes[1] as part of a broader investigation[2] on protest effectiveness. The report covers multiple lines of evidence and addresses many relevant questions, but does not say much about the methodological quality of the research. So that's what I'm going to do today. I reviewed the evidence on protest outcomes, focusing only on the highest-quality research, to answer two questions: 1. Do protests work? 2. Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Here's what I found: Do protests work? Highly likely (credence: 90%) in certain contexts, although it's unclear how well the results generalize. [More] Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Yes—the report's core claims are well-supported, although it overstates the strength of some of the evidence. [More] Cross-posted from my website. Introduction This article serves two purposes: First, it analyzes the evidence on protest outcomes. Second, it critically reviews the Social Change Lab literature review. Social Change Lab is not the only group that has reviewed protest effectiveness. I was able to find four literature reviews: 1. Animal Charity Evaluators (2018), Protest Intervention Report. 2. Orazani et al. (2021), Social movement strategy (nonviolent vs. violent) and the garnering of third-party support: A meta-analysis. 3. Social Change Lab – Ozden & Glover (2022), Literature Review: Protest Outcomes. 4. Shuman et al. (2024), When Are Social Protests Effective? The Animal Charity Evaluators review did not include many studies, and did not cite any natural experiments (only one had been published as of 2018). Orazani et al. (2021)[3] is a nice meta-analysis—it finds that when you show people news articles about nonviolent protests, they are more likely to express support for the protesters' cause. But what people say in a lab setting mig