The paper highlighted today from Emmie Hine of the University of Oxford – Oxford Internet Institute and Luciano Floridi of the University of Oxford – Oxford Internet Institute; University of Bologna- Department of Legal Studies, attempts a dissection of policy papers from both China and the U.S. on AI to isolate differences in emphasis and approach.
However, it glances off a lot failing ultimately to come to any useful conclusions; other than both countries are determined to be world leaders, which I don’t think is a revelation.
Anyhooo, summaries of the different countries’ approach are worth noting and I’ve summarized the main points below:
America’s:
- Three phases; of which the first was the Obama-administration’s response. This included references to the ‘free market’, ‘American innovation’ an inclusive approach and one in which the private sector was expected to have wide latitude in development.
- The Trump-administration’s response was the second phase. Development stressed the need for ‘American Values’ but didn’t spell out what these were exactly. Privacy was ignored/overlooked and China was identified as the main competitor who had to be bested.
- The third phase is the Biden-administration’s and brings us up to date. AI development has been framed as a values contest with China. Entrepreneurship and innovation are stressed as the drivers and now there’s an explicit policy that AI must benefit all Americans and American Allies BUT NOT China.
China’s developmental journey:
- 2017 the first AI Development Plan (AIDP) was launched with a 3-year scope.
- Global leadership was and remains an explicit goal.
- After 2020 the AIDP disappeared and AI development was rolled into the regular 5-year plan as a ‘tech’ sub-sector.
- The plan now calls for ‘disruptive breakthroughs’ whilst maintaining social harmony. An impossible combination [But all know it].
- Regions have been tasked with AI performance targets and this is encouraging application rather than innovative research.
- Despite a desire for plural-regional progress the main conurbations are the centers of excellence, and get a larger cut of development budgets
- Private sector development, which has led the charge in recent years, appears to be slowing down.
The paper concludes reaching for sloppy tropes (IMHO) where the West’s approach is characterized by exceptionalism born out of the Protestant work-ethic and China’s is guided by a Confucian mindset that prizes harmony above all. Hmmm. I wonder what China based social scientists tasked with the same analysis would have concluded?
Despite it’s shortcomings I note this paper has been viewed and downloaded a lot and will no doubt be referenced by many for whom the job of maintaining the China-vs.-U.S.-contest narrative is a lucrative business.
You can follow up with the full text via this link Same Same, But Different.
Happy Sunday.