While the latest outrageous tweet by Kanye West fills up the news, a major development goes unnoticed: the global AI race for supremacy. Currently, many national governments are drafting plans for boosting AI research and development within their borders. The opportunities are vast and the payoff fairly significant. From a military perspective alone, AI supremacy can be the deciding factor for which country will be the next super-power. Further more, an economy driven by a thriving AI industry can spur innovation in multiple industries while also boosting economic growth. On the flip-side, a lack of planning on this area could lead to increasing social unrest as automation destroys existing jobs and workers find themselves excluded from AI-created wealth. There is just too much at stake to ignore. In this two-part blog, I’ll look at how the top players in the AI race are planning to harness technology to their advantage while also mitigating its potential dangers.
China’s Moonshot Effort for Dominance
China has bold plans for AI development in the next years. The country aims to be the AI undisputed leader by 2030. They hold a distinctive advantage in the ability to collect data from its vast population yet they are still behind Western countries in algorithms and research. China does not have the privacy requirements that are standard in the West and that allows them almost unfettered access to data. If data is the raw material for AI, then China is rich in supply. However, China is a late-comer to the race and therefore lacks the accumulated knowledge held by leading nations. The US, for example, started tinkering with AI technology as early as the 1950’s. While the gap is not insurmountable, it will take a herculean effort to match and then overtake the current leadership held by Western countries.
Is China up to the challenge? Judging by its current plan, the country has a shot. The ambitious strategy both acknowledges the areas where China needs to improve as well as outlines a plan to address them. At the center of it is the plan to develop a complete ecosystem of research, development and commercialization connecting government, academia and businesses. Within that, it includes plans to use AI for making the country’s infrastructure “smarter” and safer. Furthermore, it anticipates heavy AI involvement in key industries like manufacturing, healthcare, agriculture and national defense. The last one clearly brings concern for neighboring countries that fear a rapid change in the Asian balance of power. Japan and South Korea will be following these developments closely.
It seeks to accomplish these goals through a partnership between government and large corporations. In this case, the government has greater ability to control both the data and the process in which these technologies develop. This may or may not play to China’s advantage. Only time will tell. Of all plans, they have the longest range and assuming the Communist party remains in power, the advantage of continuity often missing from liberal democracies.
While portions of China’s strategy are concerning, the world has much to learn from the country’s moonshot effort in this area. Clearly, the Chinese government has realized the importance and the potential for the future of humanity. They are now ensuring that this technology leads to a prosperous Chinese future. Developing countries will do well to learn from the Chinese example or see themselves once again politically subjugated by the nations that master these capabilities first. Unlike China, most of these nations do not count on a vast population and favored geo-political position. The key for them will be to find niche areas where they can excel to focus their efforts.
US’ Decentralized Entrepreneurship
Uncle Sam sits in a paradoxical position in this race. While the undisputed leader, having an advantage in patents and having an established ecosystem for research development, the country lacks a clear plan from the government. This was not always the case. In 2016, the Obama administration was one of the first to spell out principles to ensure public investment in the technology. The plan recognized that the private sector would lead innovation, yet it aimed at establishing a role for the government to steward the development and application of AI. With the election of Donald Trump in 2016, this plan is now uncertain. No decision has been announced on the matter so it is difficult to say what role the government will play in the future development of AI in the United States. While the current administration has kept investment levels untouched, there is no resolution on a future direction.
Given that many breakthroughs are happening in large American corporations like Google, Facebook and Microsoft – the US will undoubtedly play a role in the development of AI for years to come. However, a lack of government involvement could mean a lopsided focus on commercial applications. The danger in such path is that common good applications that do not yield a profit will be replaced by those that do. For example, the US could become the country that has the most advanced gadgets while the majority of its population do not have access to AI-enabled healthcare solutions.
Another downside for a corporate-focused AI strategy is that these large conglomerates are becoming less and less tied to their nation of origin. Their headquarters may still be in the US, but a lot of the work and even research is now starting to be done in other countries. Even for the offices in the country, the workforce is often-times foreign-born. We can discuss the merits and downsides of this development but for a president that was elected to put “America first” his administration’s disinterest in AI is quite ironic. This is even more pressing as other nations put together their strategies for harnessing the benefits and stewarding the dangers of AI. For a president that loves to tweet, his silence on this matter is rather disturbing.
The Bottom Line
China and US are currently pursuing very different paths in the AI race. Without a clear direction from the government, the US is relying on private enterprise’s to lead the progress in this field. Given the US’ current lead, such strategy can work, at least in the short-run. China is coming from the opposite side where the government is leading the effort to coordinate and optimize the nation’s efforts for AI development. China’s wealth of centralized data also gives a competitive advantage, one that it must leverage in order to make up for being a late comer.
Will this be a battle between entrepreneurship and central planning? Both approaches have its advantages. The first counts on the ingenuity of companies to lead innovation. The business competitive advantage for AI leaders has huge upsides in profit and prestige. It is this entrepreneurial culture that has driven the US to lead the world in technology and research. Hence, such de-centralized effort can still yield great results. On the flip-side, a centralized effort, while possibly stifling innovation, has the advantage of focusing efforts across companies and industries. Given AI potential to transform numerous industries, this approach can succeed and yield tremendous return.
What is missing from both strategies is a holistic view of how AI will impact society. While there are institutions in the US that are working on this issue, the lack of coordination with other sectors can undermine even the best efforts. In this range of centralized planning and de-centralized entrepreneurship, there must be a middle ground. This is the topic of the next blog, where I’ll talk about Europe’s AI strategy.
