The desire to accuse China of just copying is like 20 years out of date. It’s been wrong since some people on HN were in diapers.
People are going to be gobsmacked when, in our lifetime, China becomes a world power comparable to the U.S. Probably still poorer per capita, but at Spain/Italy levels, not third world country levels. And they’ll be shocked at the implications of that on the world economy, migration patterns, etc. There will be fields where China is a global leader, and Americans and Europeans will have to learn Chinese and move there, or else be stuck in some satellite office of a Chinese company. We’re all in Europe circa 1895 not realizing the behemoth America will become in WWI.
There are huge evidence of copying.
Some day China can pioneer in science or technology but the current claim about Chinese companies leading AI development is ridiculous given the evidence of distillation and the fact that like 95 percent of science that lead to the current state of AI happened in either North America or Europe.
To be honest if you want to list academic papers that lead to the current AI models the majority is either done by Google Research or sponsored by Google.
In 2017 maybe. This chart shows last year’s Neurips accepted papers by country and institution (top 50). What is missing here is that the papers from American institutions also have mostly Chinese authors. Europe is sliding and Singapore has more papers than Canada.
There is a clear trend.
https://www.reddit.com/r/accelerate/comments/1pi64q0/papers_...
US is still winning because of their hardware dominance. Also they have astronomical budgets and much better financing. They throw money at an industry until they win. Whereas China throws lots of (educated) people at it. 38% of top AI researchers today have Chinese education and origin^. And hardware dominance will change in the upcoming years.
^ https://archivemacropolo.org/interactive/digital-projects/th...
Volume is up because AI generation help writing papers. We should find a better measure of impact. I like to see the same charts on best paper awards.
From the Hoover Institution’s analysis of the team behind DeepSeek:
“We find striking evidence that China has developed a robust pipeline of homegrown talent. Nearly all of the researchers behind DeepSeek’s five papers were educated or trained in China. More than half of them never left China for schooling or work, demonstrating the country’s growing capacity to develop world-class AI talent through an entirely domestic pipeline. And while nearly a quarter of DeepSeek researchers gained some experience at US institutions during their careers, most returned to China, creating a one-way knowledge transfer that benefits China’s AI ecosystem.”
That was from a year ago.
Consider that on top of this the country was starved of access to Nvidia chips - and therefore accelerated its development of Ascend chips, and it’s clear they are undeniably leaders in AI research and development. Not the only ones, but the achievements are crystal clear.
Exactly. China is a real tech power now, just like Japan and Taiwan. The U.S. is ahead in a lot of areas of technology, but China has home grown talent that is taking the lead in other areas. And unlike Japan and Taiwan, China has a much bigger pool to draw from.
Which areas of technology is the US ahead of China in?
(The last time I said something like this it got [flagged] [dead] and I don't know why)
Most of them. Semiconductor fabrication is a big one. Metallurgy in general, with specific application to jet turbines. Aerospace broadly. The Chinese can’t build anything like a 787. Radars and most weapons systems.
Okay but I cannot stress this enough: no one cares.
It's international politics. The rules are optional, and written on the back of whoever agrees to enforce them.
If you're going to run around declaring AI is a strategic advantage vital to national security, then guess what? Stealing it is a great idea. That you stole it is only a problem if it means you're not developing the ability to support that work locally as well, and China seems to be doing very well at building it's local talent and support network.
If you ever listen to Russian propaganda, there's a similar theme: every big idea, everything good, all of it was definitely first developed in Russia - only Russians could ever have thought of it. Of course, Russia isn't actually a world leader in any of those things, or able to execute on them.
Which is what America is sounding like more and more these days.
> If you ever listen to Russian propaganda, there's a similar theme: every big idea, everything good, all of it was definitely first developed in Russia - only Russians could ever have thought of it. Of course, Russia isn't actually a world leader in any of those things, or able to execute on them.
When I was a kid watching Star Trek VI, I was confused by the line "You've not experienced Shakespeare until you've read him in the original Klingon".
And then I learned about how the Klingons (especially in that film) were a stand-in for the USSR.
I mean, lots of things have been developed in European countries, and said countries either never commercialized the technology well enough, or lost leadership. I'm sure that prior to WW2, Brits would've treated the idea that they could be out-engineered by the Germans with ridicule.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here.
Upthread, the point about it not mattering what China stole but what they can do? That "Made in China" has gone from a sign of low quality to being the default as it became the factory of the world? Yes, China's winning and the sooner the rest of us wake up and smell the tea the better. They learned lessons from how my ancestors were able to push them around despite coming from a small, damp, sheep-filled rock in the Atlantic, and don't want that to happen again; for most of "the west", being on the receiving end of such humiliation is a historical footnote if it's in our own history books (or living history) at all*, and most of the exceptions are former-Soviet-bloc/Warsaw Pact.
But specifically to the point about the USSR claiming all (good) things for itself, as parodied in this manner by Star Trek? AFAICT, that was just plain soviet propaganda.
* What happened in Africa and India/Pakistan, however, is recent enough to still be in living memory. Israel likewise, though now this is on the edge of living memory for the things which led to its reincarnation.
And while the Irish definitely still retell history lessons about the British and the Famine, I'm not at all sure if the stuff in NI in my lifetime counts as "humiliation" given I'm British and our newspapers just said "terrorist" about everything that came from there.
This is only relevant to the point that most of us are deeply oblivious to how bad things can get when someone else is the boss and we don't get to vote in their elections.
well speaking as a chinese, we only want our relics back.....nothing else from UK
But that was more of a jab at literary snobs who would tout "Homer in the original Greek" or "Marcus Aurelius in the original Latin" or "Old Testament in the Original Hebrew". It has been such a meme, probably for centuries. Because it was not so long ago when university students were actually conversant in many classical languages such as those.
What about EVs, solar, or batteries? They are leading these fields for some time.
I am still shocked Spain/Italy and USA are considered 'first world' countries. We are not in 70s or even 90s anymore. I've been to China in 2011 also thinking I am visiting some huge village but...that was the most futuristic trip I ever had. I was surprised by the penetration level of the mobile devices - everything had a QR code, you could buy/sell/send money, pay services all with a single tap on a phone.
China has pursued a phased approach to growth. Instead of trying to pull everyone up at once, it’s trying to get top tier cities to a high level of development before moving to other cities. Shanghai already has a GDP per capita (PPP) that’s comparable to Madrid. But there are provincial capitals with almost 10 million people that are less than half or less than a quarter of that.
Visiting cities is also a misleading way to compare the U.S. in particular to anywhere else. I have family in town in Mississippi that has less than 10,000 people. But the town has a household income over 60% of the national household income. Cost of living adjusted, they’re about as well off as someone in a top tier city. Someone with a median household income can afford a newly renovated, 4 bedroom, 2,500 square foot house.
I've been in China in 2015 and like anywhere else in the world it was very mixed: some urban areas like central NY or central Madrid and Milan (or much shinier) and some rural areas like 200 year ago, but inevitably with electronics.
Basically in every country of the world you can travel one hour from big cities and get in a place deep in the fields or the woods with very different needs and dynamics from the city. They could be different countries and maybe both cities and countryside will be better off if we could have fractally composed states with different laws and regulations.
I don’t know any cities in Americas that is comparable to Shanghai or even Japan in term of transportation or convenient
Americans optimize for hyper-individualistic convenience. The average one-way commute in Dallas, Texas is under 30 minutes. The average in Tokyo is 48-50 minutes. And the guy in Dallas goes to work in a perfectly climate controlled bubble where he doesn’t have to interact with anyone else, while the person in Tokyo is crammed into a rush hour subway car.
I love Tokyo too (never been to Shanghai), because I’m an asian collectivist at heart. But you can’t really compare across cultures when they’re optimizing for different things. Americans are very wealthy and spend a lot of their wealth optimizing to never have to be near other people.
Paris has a metro station everywhere at least in what a tourist can assume to be an enlarged city center. Tokyo is another city with a lot of metro stations. Manhattan too, at least up to Central Park (but 20+ since my last visit.) I don't remember Shanghai to stand out positively or negatively, but 11 years can be a long time.
Didn't China build an entire country-wide bullet train network in that time?
Possibly, but they already had bullet trains in 2015. I've been on a few of them.
I mean, you have those kind of luxuries even in the poorest of countries in Asia, it’s just that there’s still a huge discrepancy between rich and poor, city vs countryside.
It’s not difficult to find areas in all these countries that are significantly less developed than Spain/Portugal’s underdeveloped areas. It’s just not as black and white as you seem to suggest.
(I come from EU but have been living in various countries in Asia for over a decade)
From what I can tell, China has a capitalism problem, not an industrial wealth problem - they could house every one of their citizens in a decent apartment and give them gadgets and a car to drive, yet half the country is third-world poor still.
But that's because in a market economy, you can't just give away things, and those poor people don't produce much of value by capitalist standards, so the can't pay for those things.
I'm sure the CCP is working on the problem of how to give these people those things without crashing the economy.
> From what I can tell, China has a capitalism problem, not an industrial wealth problem - they could house every one of their citizens in a decent apartment and give them gadgets and a car to drive
This is wildly incorrect.
Not to disagree with you too much, but
> I am still shocked Spain/Italy and USA are considered 'first world' countries.
They're a mix. Rural southern Italy isn't the same as e.g. Milan or Venice. I've walked from 1st world to third world within a few blocks in San Francisco. It's a slightly longer walk in Cape Town.
> I was surprised by the penetration level of the mobile devices - everything had a QR code, you could buy/sell/send money,
I've has exact same experience in places in Africa (1). Yes there's poverty and crime, but also if the technology is affordable, effective and reduces the need to handle cash then it's adopted fast enough.
People's understanding of that part of the world is also decades out of date. Mobile devices actually "leapfrogged" the wired telecoms network rollout (2), but that was decades ago. Africa is huge and diverse, and it is not going to be China this decade, but also it's changing fast.
And it might be China-aligned as China positions to be a reliable trading partner with affordable goods. It's possible that affordable Chinese solar-battery electricity systems will cause another leapfrog. This includes Chinese EVs (3).
1)
https://www.m-pesa.africa/
https://www.payshap.co.za
2) https://mg.co.za/news/tech/2014-06-12-cellphones-create-a-te...
3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo---4TAIEA&t=528s
I mean, China is the leader in PV panels, battery tech, telecommunication hardware, etc... already...
[dead]
[dead]
So the efficient market hypothesis is wrong?
This isn’t even controversial assuming you’re talking about the real world, economists freely admit that. It only holds for spherical markets in a vacuum.
How is the efficient market hypothesis applicable here?
Your point that “people will be gobsmacked” suggests you think you know something that the broad market does not. In a loose way, that implies the market has enough information to anticipate this but is not pricing assets accordingly. Asked another way, why not just short American assets if you are convinced of your hypothesis? Why live here, assuming you do?
The efficient market hypothesis, read loosely, says that capitalism is the best system. Yet here it is being thoroughly pwned by a series of 5-year plans.
exactly zero serious people draw that connection, and it suggests that you either dont know what the term means or are constructing a strawman. Most of the economic literature for the last 150 has explored the constraints on markets and their function.
The efficient market hypothesis TM is a very narrow theory about price information, it says nothing about Economic Development or Direction. It is a theoretical extreme that can be used to compare real world Systems.
Further, China's success relies heavily on market processes
What do you mean, I don't follow.
Also, yes, often.