Do you think Chinese lab researchers have not read Yudkovsky, or are not AGI pilled? Hate to break it to you, but they are racing to AGI with pretty same reasoning as western labs.
Just recently DeepSeek researcher in his post was saying that they need to get to AGI first, because if Anthropic gets there first then that brings a dystopia. Exact same argument was used to justify launching OpenAI (against DeepMind), and Anthropic (against OpenAI)
> Do you think Chinese lab researchers have not read Yudkovsky
Most of then haven't, probably. "Do you want to study ethics from an egomaniac Harry Potter fanfiction author" is one of those questions that you can only ask in America.
Sure, one or two of them are probably participating in the conversation. But by-and-large, China's stance has been optimistic and refused calls for slowdowns.
It might be hidden somewhere or they’re doing A/B testing. Cowork was part of the left sidebar for Claude but when I was looking for it, it was gone. I had to do a search query to find it.
Comments explain why the design is the way it is. If you later need to refactor the code, you probably won't remember the reasoning behind it and you don't know if it will be safe to remove or change parts of the design.
I did write small programs myself, but mostly with Claude Code. It was very pleasant to work in it with Claude Code. Implemented a shell and 40 of coreutils. Did not really get very far with proving properties of them, but had working programs. Reading Lean4 is pretty nice. Nicer to read than OCaml, almost as nice as Haskell.
I don't see why it would be particularly difficult beyond not already having a lot of IO libraries (like Kafka connectors or whatever). Pure functional programming in Scala with IO monads is quite pleasant.
reply