|
China Urged To End Successful Policies
In a variant of the Sowing Doubt About China – But At What Cost? propaganda scheme, the New York Times makes the (somewhat racist) claim that China lacks the capability to turn talent into innovation:
What DeepSeek’s Success Says About China’s Ability to Nurture Talent (archived) – New York Times, Feb 10 2025
The subtitle reveals the core thesis:
China produces a vast number of STEM graduates, but it hasn’t been known for innovation. Cultural and political factors may help explain why.
In a globalized world the innovation ability of a country can be measured by the number of global patents it files.
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) provides data on these.
bigger
China, which the NYT says is not known for innovation, is by far leading the pack.
One might argue that China, with four times the population of the United States, should have innovated even more than that. But seen under this aspect the U.S. is also far from the top.
Per million inhabitants China filed 1.2 patents per year while the United States filed 1.5. But the real leaders here are South Korea with 5.5 patents per year per million people followed by Japan with 3.3/y/million.
Real world numbers are not sufficient to support the NYT's central thesis. That is why it barely mentions some. Its argument comes down to a political one:
Pavel Durov, the founder of the messaging platform Telegram, said last month that fierce competition in Chinese schools had fueled the country’s successes in artificial intelligence. “If the U.S. doesn’t reform its education system, it risks ceding tech leadership to China,” he wrote online.
The reality is more complicated. Yes, China has invested heavily in education, especially in science and technology, which has helped nurture a significant pool of talent, key to its ambition of becoming a world leader in A.I. by 2025.
But outside of the classroom, those graduates must also contend with obstacles that include a grinding corporate culture and the political whims of the ruling Communist Party. Under its current top leader, Xi Jinping, the party has emphasized control, rather than economic growth, and has been willing to crack down on tech firms it deems too influential.
If that is indeed so why is it supposed to be bad?
Is it really healthy for a country to have Apple, Nvidia, Microsoft, Amazon and Alphabet (Google) leading in Market Cap? The author fails to follow that question.
She instead misleads about the alleged crack-down:
Beijing has blessed the A.I. sector — for now. But in 2020, after deciding that it had too little control over major companies like Alibaba, it launched a sweeping, yearslong crackdown on the Chinese tech industry.
The crack-down against Alibaba owner Jack Ma came when he tried to expand Alibaba into the so called fin-tech business.
Juggling with credit and various derivatives thereof is a part of the economy that is better to be kept under control. The 2008 mortgage credit crisis and the following government bailout of private banks have taught as much. Pouring money and talent into a sector that is not productive and carries high risk is not in any societies' best interest.
In an aside the NYT author comes near to acknowledging that:
(DeepSeek’s founder, Liang Wenfeng, pivoted to A.I. from his previous focus on speculative trading, in part because of a separate government crackdown there.)
How can one conclude from there that China still has to liberalize?
But the best way for China to capitalize on its well-educated, ambitious A.I. work force may be for the government to get out of the way.
China's government planning and control over education and its economy has led to its astonishing rise.
Lacking the abundance of capital which OpenAI and other U.S. companies are spending on their attempts to monopolize their fields, DeepSeek had to innovate. It did so and has beaten its competition.
How less government intervention would have led to a better performance than China has shown is difficult to argue. The NYT for one fails at it.
@the Bar: one of our better threads lately. Keep it up.
@psychohistorian | Feb 11 2025 3:18 utc, who said:
If we go the totalitarian direction lots of us useless eaters will be disposed of and only enough money slaves will be retained to provide security and machine running…..and getting to that level will be ugly.
Tom: Ya, that’s one possible outcome that we’re aimed at, which is of course why I’m raising the point of the productivity paradox. It isn’t a foregone conclusion, tho, because as awareness increases, volition-towards-other-avenues also increases. We haven’t talked that much about the “what to do” and the “how to do it” yet, tho, and it appears that’s become (e.g. past-tense) a worthwhile topic.
@LoveDonbass | Feb 11 2025 3:50 utc.
Tom: You made some great points in your post. Now the question becomes “is the U.S. innovation and team-work capable?” Not just agreement-capable w/r/t the rest of the world, but agreement-capable among ourselves. Right now we’re pretty bad, and it’s really holding us back.
@Johan Kaspar | Feb 11 2025 10:03 utc, who said:
Is technological progress uniformly beneficial or can such progress undermine civilizational progress?
It is not always beneficial. Some species go extinct because of external forces while some species go extinct because of their own evolutionary path. Humans may go extinct because of their own evolution into a technological species, if a big rock from space doesn’t kill us all before going extinct on our own.
Tom: A fine point. This is, imho, the part that c1ue is currently overlooking. Too much of a good thing can become a not-so-good thing. Now the question is “how do we innovate in directions that contribute to species well-being over the longer term. We’re seeing evidence that we’re hitting the wall. Our innovations seem to be making key things worse, not better. That means our criteria for what qualifies as “innovation” aren’t the right criteria. In addition to commercial viability, innovations now have to address our cultural and environmental issues.
That last statement is sure to arouse the ire of many, and that’s good, I hope they express their outrage, as that, again in my opinion, is very topical. The pace of change is accelerating now, and we need to ask whether we going faster in the right direction.
@Ornot | Feb 11 2025 13:24 utc, who said:
Definitions are important in discussion, innovation is usually understood as bringing in a new method of achieving certain ends. The ends talked of as far as I know are always archaic or traditional. For example geared towards survival, success, comfort, plenty, or even just show.
Art could possibly be understood as innovation that is free of those objectives, that is contemplative.
.
Tom: Well said, Ornot. We’re about to individually-satisfy ourselves right into a bridge abutment at high speed. This is why I’m arguing for a somewhat more robust, better directed set of criteria for “what makes a great innovation?”. Commercial viability gets us so far, but an innovation that makes money while it exacerbates key problems in our civilization ain’t such a good thing.
Key problems? Like what?
a. Pitting us against ourselves. That’s MSM writ large, right? Same for our politics. Toxic, divisive, Karl Rove Wrecked our Polity stuff.
b. Concentration of wealth. Do I need to elaborate, or is that commonly accepted as a major issue?
c. Underutilization of our minds. Media of all stripes, take a bow. Are we engaging people’s minds in the probs of our day? Noooooo.
d. Degradation of our habitat. Not just the non-human habitat, all of it. Stuff’s starting to come unglued, and the most fun part of the acceleration curve lies just ahead. And momentum is gargantuan.
e. Excluding large swaths of people from the wealth-generating activity. We’re obsoleting labor at a rapid pace, and have yet to ID sufficient ways to re-engage those (very many, and increasing daily) people so they have a legitimate role in the future. The elites appear to have written many of us off. Lest we think “it won’t happen to me, tho, I’m cool” … how confident are you of that statement?
So how are the “new products” that have come out lately addressing these big issues? Are ya seeing it?
So as Ornot, Pschohistorian, and several others point out, the ethos – the values – of our innovation seem a little “challenged” right now. And not just here in the U.S., or in the “West”. Pretty much right across the board.
Posted by: Tom Pfotzer | Feb 11 2025 15:46 utc | 220
F??k the system before the system F??ks you!
In the lush countryside of England, where the canals wound like sinewy veins through the landscape, lived a man named Oliver Bray. Oliver was a grizzled soul with a mane of unruly hair and a beard that had grown wild with his years spent living off-grid on a narrowboat named Pattey. He had traded a life of conformity for the rhythmic lull of water and the embrace of rustic living, allowing his heart to sync with the ebb and flow of nature.
Pattey was no ordinary boat; she was his sanctuary. With its burnt-orange chimney puffing smoke into the sky, it stood as a testament to his ingenuity and determination. Amidst the wallpaper of wildflowers and reeds, Oliver had carved out a life that most could only dream of, one where the wild gave him fuel, food, and a freedom too precious to quantify.
Every day began with a ritual: a walk along the towpath with his loyal four-legged companion, a scruffy but endearing mutt named Dumbo. Named not for any lack of grace but rather for his massive ears and loyalty, Dumbo was all the family Oliver needed. They combed through the woods, foraging for mushrooms, berries, and wild greens. In the spring and summer, Oliver relied heavily on nature’s bounty, while in the colder months, he supplemented his diet with carefully stored preserves and pickles.
Fuel was gathered from the surrounding forests, where fallen branches became logs, chopped and stacked with care. Meanwhile, a slight breeze would carry the aroma of seasoned wood through their tiny floating home, turning the simple act of cooking into an art form.
However, what made Oliver’s life truly remarkable was his secret operation—an underground distillery nestled in the narrowboat’s cramped quarters. With a mix of scrap metal and a penchant for tinkering, Oliver had fashioned a makeshift spirit still fashioned from discarded materials he had gathered on his evening jaunts through local junkyards. It gleamed with a rustic charm, an alchemical tool that transformed raw grain and foraged fruits into potent moonshine.
What had begun as a hobby became a necessity. When Oliver calculated just how much he was spending on essentials, he realized he needed a little extra income. One fateful evening, while sharing a drink with fellow boaters, an idea sparked. Why not trade his homemade spirits for goods, services, or even cash? Thus began his Moonshine Chronicles, where he became a friend to the local boating community—the shadowy supplier of the best-kept secret: homemade gin, fruity schnapps, and wheaty vodka, each bottle hand-labeled with a whimsical drawing of Dumbo.
Word spread like wildfire along the canals. Oliver’s moonshine became the toast of the towpath, exchanged in hushed tones between boaters in secluded coves or lively gatherings on sunny afternoons. It turned out he had a knack not just for distilling but for brewing enduring friendships and trust. He developed a network of loyal customers who would keep his secret, allowing him to earn a handsome surplus of GB pounds—hard currency for someone living a life so far removed from it.
With his earnings, he indulged in the pleasures of life, often treating Dumbo to gourmet kibble or a new bed. Calves of cheeses, fresh seeds for their little garden, and special snacks for both himself and Dumbo filled the narrowboat. And on especially good trading days, he would host barbecues for fellow boaters, where homemade spirits flowed freely amidst laughter and stories shared under the glow of fairy lights.
As weeks turned into months, Oliver developed a rhythm, an existence that danced between nature’s offering and the pleasures of camaraderie. He became something of a local legend, his narrowboat a beacon of self-sufficiency and rebellion against the constraints of modern consumerism.
But perhaps the greatest joy for Oliver was the simple companionship of Dumbo, who would sit attentively by his side, eyes sparkling with the joy of being alive. Together they explored the banks of the canal, chased rabbits, and basked in the sun.
As time went on, Oliver became a firm believer that the true wealth didn’t lie in how much money he made or how many moonshine bottles he sold, but in the freedom he tasted, the friends he made, and the profound connection he fostered with Dumbo and the wilderness surrounding them.
Thus, he found a fulfilling life, one brewed in the light of the moon and carried on the back of a shaggy dog, nestled sweetly among the wildflowers—forever content drifting on the waterways, living a life just beyond the reach of the system.
https://i.postimg.cc/G2fWBFhc/7338448d-caaa-426d-9d4d-7bdcda80eb56.png
Posted by: fleischwurst | Feb 11 2025 16:41 utc | 227
In response to Ornot@202,
“With material innovation, let us say tooling, predictability of outcome is a main driver. That is to say an objective, to achieve a certain task, is known in advance, because a barrier to reaching that objective has been found.”
Yes, but to me, that is the “granular view” — as in, we are looking at innovation from the perspective of a hypothetical piece of technology and its development. The article in the OP doesn’t do that, as it adopts a perspective at the level of nation-states in competition for being the most innovative, i.e the objective we know about is the objective to innovate, whatever that actually means, and already I would argue that “predictability of outcome” of such a broad view does not correlate with any specific tooling improvement or technological solution, but arguably a philosophical framework. The state that thinks of itself as a global leader in innovation is currently focused on holding back the development of others as its strategy for remaining on top, while we are offered a framework of thought where it is in the interest of other nations to change the international perception of how innovative they are, so those are the tasks or problems offered up as the context for how we’re meant to think about innovation — to me, the “predictability of outcome” in this context, as well as whether there’s a worthy task being achieved or a problem being solved, are open questions.
For that reason, I introduced a slight perspective adjustment where innovation is a global and historical phenomenon, an aspect of human development both past and projected into a hypothetical future, because my first instinct is that the role of innovation is being misunderstood in the framework that is being presented.
In response to Johan Kaspar@225,
“For the agrarians, as they were dying b4 their 30s due to predators, parasites, diseases, accidents. The problem was how to live long and healthy and have more kids. Same struggle for all animals.”
This is a so-called open ended question, since the dynamics of mortality and reproductive capability don’t have a ceiling. A hypothetical immortal entity that seeds the entire universe with its offspring by thinking still hasn’t actually moved the needle on resolving this conundrum, only changed the dynamics, and if we frame it as a problem that we want to solve, then the ultimate solution is an end to the process itself. This is not to imply that I’m somehow arguing against innovation, as your reply seems to suggest — my focus is on the semantics of it being defined as a problem-solving mechanism, since that instead strains the meaning of the terms problem and solution. In comparing modern society to that of our prehistoric ancestors, do we observe deficiencies that they themselves struggled with or merely project our own perspectives onto what their experience should have been like based on how we would respond were it suddenly thrust on us? In my view, the human species never faces any problems, but adapts to and shapes their environment, normalizing experience, while a problem is the product of an outside perspective, the conjuring of a “what if” scenario, and taken together with innovation the two terms become synonymous — the problem finding its origin in its own solution, hypothetically or practically. Or, in simpler terms, a problem doesn’t exist until an improvement to a process is implicit in its redefinition, and so to hinge innovation onto problem-solving creates a logical loop rather than give the term meaning.
The introduction of time-travel, for example, would unarguably be an innovation, I’m sure we would both agree. Is the problem then that we are otherwise confined to a certain rigid temporality, that we don’t have the tools for manipulating events in our own past retroactively or ignore causal relationships by drawing from future events, or other opportunities that the addition of time-travel introduces? Are these actually problems if time-travel turns out to be fundamentally impossible, or simply fails to materialize, or are these restrictions actually benefits in how they force us to approach choices more mindfully and safeguards against temporal manipulation, while the hypothetical introduction of time-travel would be a problem?
As for evolution as a parallel, the framework of the environment and the mechanics of the system to which the evolving entity adheres force a specific structure on the course of possible events. Mutation can’t be totally random, but has to adhere to what is physically possible in order to manifest materially, and the success of traits, whether guided or arbitrary, is guided by their potential to survive and thrive within their environment, causing reinforcement mechanisms to emerge. The same is true for human innovation when viewed from the perspective of human development as a whole, as human agency and ingenuity do not exist in a vacuum, or arguably do not exist at all in this context, but are subject to what is physically possible and the impact of their product modulated by the environment in which it is introduced. If you believe I’m right about the unpredictability of innovation in the broader perspective, then human innovative development can be conceptualized as a pseudo-randomly evolving organism without contradiction. In this view, the relevance of individual agency is debatable at best, since we’re talking about a non-deterministic system with a non-deterministic outcome. You yourself left it up to chance whether humanity would die a “natural death” or kill itself off, without offering a third alternative, and so if we also have to account for human agency as a determining agent in the system, this implies that, in your view, humans individually want to see one of these two outcomes come to pass and are actively pursuing it in all that they do, which I sincerely doubt is the case.
Posted by: Skiffer | Feb 12 2025 8:58 utc | 261
|
