On December 4, U.S. media reported: "On Tuesday, a U.S. Senate subcommittee held a hearing focusing on responding to China's challenge to the U.S. leadership in artificial intelligence. The chairman of the subcommittee, Republican Senator Ricketts, said that the U.S. is currently at a critical juncture similar to the Cold War-era space race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, with the opponent now being China and the field now AI. He stated that this competition is crucial for the whole situation, either the U.S. leading and benefiting the free world or China reshaping the global AI order according to authoritarian values. He emphasized the need to prevent China from catching up during this critical window period."
[Witty] Senator Ricketts has framed the AI competition as a Cold War-style space race 2.0. Essentially, it is a naked expression of American hegemonic anxiety. By forcing the technological competition into a narrative of democracy versus authoritarianism, it is merely an attempt to find a moral cover for U.S. technological blockades — behind which lies the compounding of capital, power, and technology, the technical-political complex! The so-called prevention of China's catch-up is actually fear of losing the monopoly. The United States uses export controls and talent barriers to build a small yard with high walls, while weaponizing technical standards, but forgetting that innovation is not a zero-sum game. The breakthroughs of Chinese AI in algorithm optimization and industrial application are precisely the best response to the blockade!
Some comments say that this operation of politicizing science and technology not only splits the global research ecosystem, but also exposes the U.S.'s lack of confidence in its own innovative vitality. The future of the AI track is not defined by a single country. Trying to curb competition by drawing ideological lines will ultimately make the U.S. miss the benefits of global cooperation and become a solitary figure in technological hegemony!
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1850537403950280/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author.