Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
AI Businesses China Government The Almighty Buck United States Politics Technology

Is China Outsmarting America in AI? (nytimes.com) 163

An anonymous reader shares an NYTimes article: Beijing is backing its artificial intelligence push with vast sums of money. Having already spent billions on research programs, China is readying a new multibillion-dollar initiative to fund moonshot projects, start-ups and academic research (Editor's note: the link could be paywalled; alternative source), all with the aim of growing China's A.I. capabilities, according to two professors who consulted with the government on the plan. China's private companies are pushing deeply into the field as well, though the line between government and private in China sometimes blurs. Baidu -- often called the Google of China and a pioneer in artificial-intelligence-related fields, like speech recognition -- this year opened a joint company-government laboratory partly run by academics who once worked on research into Chinese military robots. China is spending more just as the United States cuts back. This past week, the Trump administration released a proposed budget that would slash funding for a variety of government agencies that have traditionally backed artificial intelligence research.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is China Outsmarting America in AI?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Answer on your phones; now

  • Yes ... (Score:2, Troll)

    ... it is.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Strong AI doesn't exist yet, so no, no one is outsmarting anyone when developing true AI.

    If we're talking about AI being equal to computer programs as marketing tends to do, then no, because American tech companies are the most valuable in the world.

  • Every year we keep stupidly claiming that AI is just around the corner. Every year we are disappointed.

    The truth is we have tricked ourselves. The rapid pace of Moore's law (computing power keeps doubling) has created incredible simulations. But paintings and statues do NOT spontaneously come alive, no matter how accurately they simulate a person. Neither do computer chips.

    There is a fundamental difference between real AI and what computer chips can do. The ability of computer chips to parse written, a

    • I've been hearing about AI since reading Byte Magazine in the early 1980's.
    • by Alascom ( 95042 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @04:40PM (#54507387)

      In all fairness, I believe you are conflating AI with AGI.

      Artificial intelligence has been dramatically improving at a staggering pace and is focused on singular tasks. Artificial "General" Intelligence is still nowhere to be seen on the current technological horizon, and would allow a computer to be amazing at any number of tasks.

      That has not stopped writers, who earned their IT chops in a movie theater, from repeatedly suggesting that any AI that can drive a car or beat a World Master Go player is just steps away from initiating a discussion about its personal dreams and ambitions.

    • by SoftwareArtist ( 1472499 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @04:57PM (#54507447)

      The problem is that you misunderstand what "artificial intelligence" means. John McCarthy, the person who coined the term in 1956, defined it as making machines "behave in ways that would be called intelligent if a human were so behaving." It explicitly does not require machines to be sentient. It does not require the machine to follow the same "thought processes" that a human would when performing that action. When a human plays chess, or translates a document into a different language, or drives a car down a street while obeying traffic laws and not hitting anything, everyone agrees they are displaying intelligence. Therefore when a computer does the same thing, that counts as artificial intelligence. That's been the standard definition of the term for the last 60 years.

      If you want a computer to be sentient, that's something completely different. We're nowhere near being able to do that. We aren't even sure how to define what that would mean. But that isn't what the term "artificial intelligence" means.

      • So everyone is wrong since the 60s. Fortunately he posted his comment on slashdot so we can now all update our definition of AI to match his that is obviously the good one.

        • Yes. Everyone HAS been wrong since the 60s on AI. People have been bleating about AI since then, and we still don't have software that even works RELIABLY.
          • Human brains aren't exactly reliable either, so apparently that's not a requirement for the "I" part.

      • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

        John McCarthy, the person who coined the term in 1956, defined it as making machines "behave in ways that would be called intelligent if a human were so behaving."

        The problem with that definition is that human intelligence and AI are very different beasts. A human who is capable of multiplying 8-digit numbers in a matter of milliseconds would be considered intelligent by most, or at least very talented. Does that make calculators AI?

        ... or drives a car down a street while obeying traffic laws and not hitting anything, everyone agrees they are displaying intelligence

        Not really. Creating AI that could drive a car is very very hard, but you wouldn't put "can drive a car" in the skills section on your resume. Likewise, "cleaning the room" and "picking fruits" are not considered highly intelligent work

      • Playing chess isn't a sign of intelligence at all. It is a game with strict rules. Computers are EXCELLENT at things with strict rules and boundaries. It isn't AI. Neither is driving a car (and a computer can't do that very well either!)
      • But if a human was really good at Go but couldn't speak or have any other thought, they wouldn't be considered intelligent at all.
    • I guess you missed the memo - AI isn't around the corner, it's already here and widely used. Maybe ask the many industries that depends on it if they're disappointed, or think the research was wasted.

      Your "no true Scotsman" definition of AI isn't anywhere near, and likely never will be if you keep trying to redefine it as "alive" or "not a computer chip", but that's ok, real researchers weren't trying to simulate a person anyway (well, except maybe Kurzweil & his dad).

      What they're (successfully) creatin

      • Name one AI that is "here". It isn't AI. It is just programs. Computers aren't "learning". They are just running programs. That is all.
        • So you'd add "not running a program" to the list of requirements in your personal definition, next to "not a computer chip". Why not just say "must be a human brain"? It's no less arbitrary, and no less unrelated to actual research.

          Do you also define "learning" as requiring biology, since your meaning of the word apparently excludes a dozen existing fields [wikipedia.org]?

    • by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @06:37PM (#54507827)

      Every year we keep stupidly claiming that AI is just around the corner. Every year we are disappointed.

      The truth is we have tricked ourselves. The rapid pace of Moore's law (computing power keeps doubling) has created incredible simulations. But paintings and statues do NOT spontaneously come alive, no matter how accurately they simulate a person. Neither do computer chips.

      Indeed. But most people fall for cargo-cult, i.e. they cannot distinguish things that look similar on the outside. Apparently, actually understanding how something works requires advanced human intelligence, and it seems only something like 10% of the population has that. Hence the stupid claims.

      There is a fundamental difference between real AI and what computer chips can do. The ability of computer chips to parse written, audio, and visual information is amazing, and keeps growing but it is NOT real AI and will never be.

      While I sort-of agree at this time, there is a small, residual change that the physicalists are right and that humans are only advanced automatons. But it does indeed not look like it at all. A lot of research has not produced any credible theory how general intelligence (true/strong AI) could be created and it clearly is not a question of computing power. For example, the only thing we have that approaches strong AI in still a very limited field is automated theorem proving. But this one gets bogged down in complexity so early, that a smart human being can do things that a computer the size of the whole universe cannot do.

      And there is the elephant in the room, constantly ignored by Neuro-"science": Consciousness. Observable only together with intelligence, and nobody has any idea what it is or how it works. In fact, current Physics does not allow it, as there is no mechanism for it. Saying it is an "emergent property of complexity" is just bullshit and akin to claiming it is "magic". Now, is two things are getting observed only together, a sound assumption is that they are facet of the same thing. Yet that also gets ignored by those that predict strong AI "anytime soon".

      Computers will shortly be able to accept input via camera and microphone as accurately as they get it from a keyboard or mouse. That is not real AI. Nor is the amazingly complex search functions and databases we have created.

      They are useful, and worth investing in, but more money has been wasted on them than is appropriate.

      The term usually used these days is "weak AI". Weak AI was historically called "automation" and it is the "AI" without intelligence.

      • You're suggesting that human brains are somehow non-physical? That's... extremely unlikely.

        It's true that brains are complicated. There's an awful lot of connections and state involved in the neural networks in them, all of which are different for each person, and it's very difficult to even get access to that state since cutting the brain open to get to it destroys a lot of it. But none of that suggests that brains don't run on regular physics. It just means you aren't smart enough to get your head around

        • by gweihir ( 88907 )

          You're suggesting that human brains are somehow non-physical? That's... extremely unlikely.

          As are the things it can to. In fact, there are rather strong indications at this time that some human brains can do things that may not be possible in this universe. Hence "unlikely" is not a show-stopper here. Incidentally, you have no basis for that probability assessment. Physics cannot even model plain life today, so we only know that quite a few things must be missing and at this time, because they are not described by Physics, they are extra-physical. Of course, I do not mean "out of existence", I me

          • No, there are no indications that brains are doing things that aren't possible in our universe. The fact that they exist in our universe is extreme evidence to the contrary. If you want to claim the opposite then you're going to need more than "I don't understand how they work". Every indication is that they're just a regular neural network, connected with so many links and weightings that they're very difficult to analyse, but using regular physics (chemistry, even) for the connections. We've been implemen

      • No mechanism in physics for consciousness?! It is well established that both consciousness and intelligence are based in electrochemical phenomena in the brain, and we are mapping them out in greater detail every day. Just because we do not have a full map and understanding yet, does not mean we never will. All knowledge was new at some time. No need to mystify it.
    • 100% correct. AI is just the new hype. That is why you see such ridiculous claims. There is no AI. And there no likely be AI.
  • by J Story ( 30227 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @04:24PM (#54507323) Homepage

    The tech giants -- Microsoft, Amazon, Google, etc. -- did not depend on an infusion of cash from governments to become leaders. Although there are likely exceptions, governments tend to do poorly when picking winners and losers. My guess is that China's major gains in A.I. will occur from spycraft, in other words, stealing the intellectual property from companies in the West.

    • That's half true. Until ten years ago, very few companies spent much money on AI. For 50 years it was mostly just the domain of government funded academics. Without all those decades of government support, it wouldn't have reached the point where companies started finding it useful and investing in it themselves.

      On the other hand, the government wasn't really "picking winners and losers." No one knew which one AI would turn out to be. It was interesting and promising enough to justify continued investm

    • Who paid for the first 13 years of school? Where did did A.I. PhDs get their student loans? And what of the many land-grant universities? Very little of the foundation was funded by these tech companies, it was the US tax payer that put up the cold hard cash to get these people through school.

      • And since government has the monopoly on military and defense matters, every single thing you do you owe to The Government for keeping you safe to do it. Or, if you're in America as opposed to China, you owe your debt of gratitude to the people who serve in harms way rather than worshipping at the altar of the state.
        • Well theoretically we(US) are operating a form of democracy, so the people have decided to make military and defense a public matter and not a private one. Although we do hire a lot of private contractors, at the high level that is determined by a government employee and funding is determined by an elected representative. Of course individually we have very little influence over the minutia of our government's operations, we have even less control over a corporation (unless we happen to be a shareholder). W

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Governments tend to do well when investing in new industries. Look at the investment in "green" tech by the US government. Okay, that solar company failed, but overall it's turned a nice profit for the government and given you Tesla and Solar City among others.

      China invests heavily in basic research, which is the area that private investors won't touch because it's too risky. China's universities are now power houses of research. Keep thinking it's all stolen from the West if you like, it will only make the

  • Went (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mikkeles ( 698461 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @04:28PM (#54507331)

    Well, how good are their AIs at Go?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    They are out hyping AI which certainly takes a lot to do compared to the US.

  • and voters -- including those who influence them -- want government money spent on bread, not education.

    • The government of the US want Guns before Butter. Check the budget.

      Education, an afterthought at this point given the military budget. One would think it's WW3.

      • by Nutria ( 679911 )

        *You* need to check the budget, and see how social programs *dwarf* the Defense Dept budget. Even by completely wiping the DOD budget to zero, the US government would still run a steep deficit.

        • True, but check the debt with regards to social programs and misspending (a lot going to the military).

          Oh, and wars are mostly off budget, discretionary. We don't have as much right now as in the past, but it's still there.

  • i say this honestly. every time apple says siri got smarter, she actually gets dumber. she only has a small subset of commands from when i first got this dumb phone. so it would not surprise me that anyone is outsmarting america in anything.
  • by XSportSeeker ( 4641865 ) on Monday May 29, 2017 @11:56PM (#54508809)

    China is already outdoing the US in a whole bunch of things, but international press do not cover this so lots of people don't really know what's going on there.

    This is an understandable, often overlooked problem that not many people stop to think about.

    The way press works for international coverage, for several countries, is to only publish a limited range of stories that overcomes the cultural/language barrier, when not ultimately going only for eye grabbing content.

    And that's fine, because really, who's got the time and attention to know everything that's happening all around the world?
    It's just naive and kinda dangerous to build an image of a country and it's industry based on the very limited information you get from main channels.

    It's why even nowadays we still have so many people with this image that products coming from China are all shoddily made or clones of american/european products, when in fact not only China controls the vast majority of production for most electronics we use in a daily basis, several design decisions and technology advances also happen there.

    It's nothing magical really... when you have a single country taking care of a huge percentage of worldwide production and manufacturing of tech related products for over a decade, of course they'll start developing their own products from start to finish. Think about what your own country would do in a similar situation.

    People who have been paying attention for one reason or another to chinese branded smartphones, tablets, laptops and several other lines of products will know that they are fast becoming indistinguishable from high end lines of american and european brands. And particularly for their own market, there is no culural barrier to overcome. Technologies that are highly related to culture like AI (because recent advancements have been going around speech recognition and such) are bound to evolve in a different way.

    Who's the leader in end-consumer quadcopters right now? DJI, indisputably, right? You know what DJI stands for? Dà-Jing Innovations Science and Technology Co. It's a Shenzhen based and born company. There's a whole bunch of tech crammed in those drones that were developed by the company... tech for obstacle avoidance, 3d tech for hand gesture recognition, radars and sensors.
    Some people might not know, but Lenovo is also a chinese company. Yes, the one that now owns the staple of business laptops, the Thinkpad line. The same company that owns Motorola.
    There's a whole bunch of cases like those in the tech industry.

    Not to mention how chinese companies have been buying left and right a whole bunch of hotel businesses, movie studios and other companies people have no idea about:
    http://fortune.com/2016/03/18/... [fortune.com]

    Sure, a whole bunch of tech that several chinese companies made in the past were straight rip offs of designs from US, europeran and japanese based companies, but this has changed in later years. And the further you go into several tech devices, the more you understand how much of the technology behind them are really not coming from a single US brand.

    High end technology for all sorts of displays nowadays have a majority made in South Korea (LG and Samsung). Central parts of cameras of all shapes and sizes, including smartphone cameras, mostly comes from Sony, a japanese company. Samsung also dominates when it comes to technology related to storage (memory chips and whatnot), but that market is a bit more balanced. CPUs, GPUs and SOCs are still mostly developed by american and british companies (Qualcomm, Intel nVidia), but that doesn't mean they don't have chinese or asian competition (Samsung, Mediatek, Allwinner). More importantly though is that in several areas of technology, if a chinese company isn't already there among the top businesses involved, there's likely to be one encroaching.

    So yeah, I don't know if chinese companie

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      In fact Lenovo was designing and building Thinkpads back when they had an IBM badge on them. IBM specified what they wanted, Lenovo built it for them. A pretty common set-up for western companies.

      Do people think that Apple does 100% of the design work on the iPhone in California? Of course not.

      Don't forget Huawei either. They are huge in telecomms and networking, and one of the pioneers of 5G tech.

  • I made a snark on another post that folks should've voted 'Regressive', but I'm slowly realizing that we absolutely did just that. Sorry, I don't have an AI angle, but I've got some spare karma!

To stay youthful, stay useful.

Working...