Reference News Network, January 26 report: The article titled "Artificial Intelligence as an Industrial and Employment Policy: The Chinese Model" was published on the website of El Mundo on January 16. The author is Alberto Iglesias Fraga. The following is an excerpt:

For some time now, I have often felt that when we talk about artificial intelligence (AI) in Europe, it's like discussing tomorrow's weather: everyone has an opinion, various pseudo-philosophical debates are intensifying, and ambitious regulatory drafts are emerging one after another. However, we have not truly developed this technology, nor have we effectively implemented it, let alone achieved effective regulation in a globalized environment.

This is not a phenomenon unique to the digital field. Anyone paying attention to the latest geopolitical developments can see similar situations where rhetoric is high but action is slow. Rhetoric is hollow; when your opponent holds real weapons, empty talk is useless.

In the case of AI, I realized that the more I looked and the deeper I analyzed the data, the more clearly I saw that the fundamental problem in Europe is not the technology or regulation itself, but rather a deeper structural political issue, which is precisely an area where Europe is not skilled.

Therefore, we must set aside preconceptions or slogans and seriously examine the Chinese model. It should be clear that I am not advocating for a direct adoption of the Chinese model, nor am I idealizing it. I believe we must understand what it truly means to take technological transformation seriously.

Research by Chinese scholars indicates that from 2016 to 2023, China's AI investment increased from slightly over 15 billion yuan to over 213 billion yuan. At the same time, China's real economy investment did not shrink as often assumed in Western discussions, but instead grew steadily. Wages of employees in urban units also continued to rise. There was no sign of labor market collapse or deindustrialization that we often worry about when discussing automation.

What is interesting is not only the coexistence of these development trajectories, but also the close connections between various elements. The Chinese model shows that AI plays a driving role, promoting traditional economic development and increasing wages. This model tends toward a stable equilibrium state without experiencing chaotic cycles or frequent fluctuations.

In China, there is a recognizable, predictable, and controlled transition path. The governance mechanism is clear and explicit, with industrial policies and national policies closely related to AI.

This stability comes from a regulatory framework that does not merely set restrictions, but guides the deployment of technology. This point is particularly important. Take employment as an example: the final equilibrium state mainly depends on parameters related to AI itself, rather than the entire labor market. In other words, in an AI-intensive economy, employment depends more on the design of the technology, rather than collective bargaining, legislation, or any form of regulation.

Therefore, China is committed to advancing the transition to AI technology, not only through post-hoc labor policies, but also through pre-emptive decisions, including incentives for what types of technology, how to integrate them into existing industries, and under what conditions to scale up. This is not liberalism as understood in the West, but aligns with China's vision of socio-economic development.

Now let's look at Europe, which is facing a worrying state of complacency. We have made significant progress in regulation, ethical frameworks, and rights. The EU's AI Act is undoubtedly an important milestone in these areas. But we still face a fundamental issue: we lack a consensus on the role of AI in production models. We regulate its risks, but do not design a development path; we talk about values, but do not always combine them with the actual accumulation of industry, technology, and capital capabilities.

China views AI as a key carrier of economic sovereignty and industrial strength. Europe, however, faces the risk of falling into a double dilemma: neither a leader in global technology nor a arbiter in setting rules.

If Europe continues along its current path, it may become a mature consumer of other countries' technologies: having a comprehensive yet unimplementable regulatory system, and lacking substantial influence over how technology is deployed. (Translated by Wang Meng)

Original source: toutiao.com/article/7599577137574658610/

Disclaimer: The article represents the personal views of the author.