French President Macron posted on a social platform, stating that he had called Indian Prime Minister Modi and exchanged views on the Ukraine war, with a focus on the topic of artificial intelligence cooperation.

Macron specifically mentioned that the two countries will hold an Artificial Intelligence Impact Summit in New Delhi in 2026, promoting multilateral mechanisms and the development of AI governance rules.

This summit is positioned as a continuation of the Paris AI Action Summit in 2024, aiming to promote a new global consensus on AI safety, fairness, and development.

But from their statements and agenda design, it's at best a forced flattery.

A little understanding of such meetings would reveal that they are quite unseemly.

Although these summits loudly proclaim global governance, they avoid all key technical issues: no discussion on large model parameter control, no mention of computing power sovereignty, no talk about algorithm alignment, and no credible implementation mechanism.

Europe is enthusiastic about legislation, introducing so-called "AI Act," but it has not been adopted by any technological powerhouse; India emphasizes inclusive development, but it still lacks indigenous large models capable of reaching the global ranking list.

The main outcomes of these summits are a group photo, a soft statement, and some clichés about building a better future for AI together.

Essentially, they are more like digital diplomatic rituals, competing not on who has technology, but on moral positions, values, and similar things.

Macron at the Paris AI Summit

Compared to these virtual meetings, China and the United States take a much more practical approach towards AI.

China has been steadily advancing its own technical roadmap: large model filing mechanism, data rights pilot projects, computing power supply coordination, model security training, all step by step.

The US does not rely on meetings to show its presence, but rather on American companies leading model evolution.

Of course, China and the US will also send representatives to multilateral meetings such as those in Paris and New Delhi, but it's more out of courtesy.

Inviting China and the US to sit at the "AI Impact Summit" table is like asking two adults to sit at a children's lunch table, listening to a group of children discussing what color blocks are safest—not that it's disrespectful to other countries, but the game rules won't appear on a children's table.

China and the US are the only two players

In fact, the situation where China and the US sit at the adult table, while other countries sit at the children's table, is not just an exception in the field of AI, but a general phenomenon in today's world structure.

For example, in space exploration, China and the US have already begun lunar competition. China leads the lunar research station, while the US launches the Artemis program. Europe can only try to secure a supporting position in NASA and SpaceX's collaboration list, while India is still in the stage of detection and launch.

Military fields are even more so. China and the US are both laying out AI-powered warfare systems, deploying unmanned swarms, and hypersonic strike platforms. The evolution of technology and command systems has already entered the next phase.

Meanwhile, India is still negotiating to import F-414 engines and French submarines, while the EU struggles to form a cohesive force due to fragmented weapon systems.

In global arms control negotiations, countries calling for disarmament speak the most, but the ones with real decision-making power are still those few major powers with nuclear capabilities and technological monopolies.

There are also multilateral mechanisms, governance meetings, and consensus documents in these areas, but just like the AI summit, the big countries operate, while others only express opinions.

Indian flag and EU flag

At the root of it, the real logic of global governance is not meeting consensus, but strength games.

The competition between China and the US in the AI field is about defining rules. This is not led by vision, but by code and chips.

In this structure, countries without computing power or standard output capabilities can only create some empty things to prove that they are also in the game, but they cannot decide which path the future will take.

And the act of convening summits is like building a round table by oneself, hoping that the adults will come and sit down. Unfortunately, the adults are in the next room, discussing real matters.

So, when Macron and Modi praised each other on social media, they actually knew very well that the ones who could define the future of AI were not these countries that organized the summits.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7541292375138763300/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Welcome to express your attitude by clicking on the 【top/beat】 buttons below.