# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
科技无所不在，当我们置身真实的科技场景，就会发现生活已在不知不觉中被悄然改变，体验从现代步入未来的奇妙，发现人类未来生活的更多可能性。

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
记录身边正在发生的故事，透过个体或群体的生活、命运，感受背后的社会运转和时代变换，从中认识一个更加真实的中国。

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This is what it sounds like when humans collaborate with AI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Cyborg comedy writing collective Botnik is creating an album of AI-assisted songs called The Songularity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The AI Robot That Respects Personal Space

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jackrabbot is a robot designed at Stanford University that navigates through crowds better than self-driving cars.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Could sex dolls with AI replace women in China?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
VICE News visits a sex doll factory and meets one Chinese man who has married a robot.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Chinese parents, so fond of sending their kids to after-school training courses, have a new favorite subject: computer coding.

Like in most countries, Chinese students don't tend to learn coding unless they are studying a technology-based university degree. But in a nation locked in an ever-closer embrace with artificial intelligence, there's no better time to get your kid hooked on Java. Last year, China's State Council launched an AI development project calling for high-tech education initiatives backed by AI. And earlier this year, Qi Yuan, a former researcher at the Chinese Academy of Educational Sciences, asserted that computer literacy should be given equal weight to textual and mathematical literacy, and that interest in programming languages should be cultivated in elementary and secondary schools.

As the Chinese state seeks to integrate AI into everyday life, parents are becoming convinced that traditional extracurricular courses, like math and English, are increasingly unable to give their kids a competitive edge in the future job market. And as interest shifts toward tech-related skills, companies are already emerging to fill the niche.

"A 7- or 8-year-old kid could start coding courses once they have reached a certain level of reading literacy and have a long enough attention span," says Dong Wei, co-founder of Coder Garden, a Shanghai- and Beijing-based agency providing children's programming courses. Coder Garden's website offers free online courses in several major programming languages - including Python, Java, and C++ - as well as paid offline classes. Many classes teach programming through the same mechanisms as computer games, allowing kids to click through a storyline to learn how a coded program functions and, eventually, solve easy programming or coding problems.

In addition, the company seeks to redress the gender imbalance in China's coding community through the initiative Teach Girls Coding, styled after similar projects in several Western countries. A survey last year estimated that 92 percent of Chinese programmers were men.

A cursory look on the Chinese search engine TianYanCha.com returns more than 80 registered companies offering computer programming classes for kids, including Beijing's VIPCODE, Hangzhou's Ultrabear, and Shenzhen's Codemao. Statistics show that most such companies were founded in or after 2014, and several have attracted vast amounts of financing. Codemao, for example, received an investment of 300 million yuan ($45 million) in May after getting its hands on 120 million yuan last November.

At present, however, China's coding classes suffer from a number of teething problems. First, they are overwhelmingly the preserve of middle-class kids whose parents can afford to pay for extracurriculars. A 40-minute offline class at Coder Garden, for example, usually falls somewhere between 130 and 160 yuan.

China's educational resources are already seriously unbalanced: Vast gaps exist between urban and rural schools. Even within cities themselves, children from underprivileged families are less likely to have access to computers. Any national coding initiative should start by ensuring that every school is equipped with the necessary hardware.

Second, the courses vary considerably in terms of quality. Some courses barely take students beyond a beginner's level, instead merely drilling them in the easiest forms of programming such as looping and "if-then" statements.

Third, the industry suffers from a lack of qualified teachers. Whereas experienced programmers might earn 30,000 yuan per month in Beijing, most elementary school teachers are lucky to earn a third of that amount. And although most coding teachers do have strong programming backgrounds, they may not be suited to teaching kids: Even in a developed city like Shanghai, only about 20 percent of pre-college IT teachers at public schools hold a teaching certificate from the government.

Although computer programming is a great way to teach children how to logically apply new skills to a problem, it is important for the kids' coding industry to avoid falling victim to the intense competitiveness we have seen in other subjects, like math. Competitions like the International Mathematical Olympiad are wildly popular among middle-class Chinese parents, who hope that recognition from such an esteemed organization will bolster their children's chances of success in university admissions.

But these competitions come with additional baggage. First, private companies prepare conveyor-belt style training courses for prospective Math Olympiad competitors, killing the simple joy of learning something new. And second, these courses become tailored to a small minority of highly gifted children. Programming should be a process of exploration and discovery open to all, not a high-stress, fun-free zone.

From a global perspective, it's a smart move for countries to integrate wide-ranging technological developments into their school curricula. But it is also crucial to anticipate the potential accessibility problems. The rise of computer programming among China's middle class looks set to take place against waves of automation and probable mass layoffs. Both the state and private companies must work to ensure that people from poorer backgrounds aren't excluded from the economy on the basis of computer literacy. In doing so, perhaps they can take a leaf out of Coder Garden's book and provide a certain number of free, open-access programming courses to anyone who wants to learn.
Editors: Wu Haiyun and Matthew Walsh. (Header image: A student adjusts code for a robot during RoboCup 2015 in Shenzhen, Guangdong province, April 24, 2015. Zhao Yanxiong/VCG)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Get With the Program: China's Coding Kids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Chinese parents, so fond of sending their kids to after-school training courses, have a new favorite subject: computer coding. Like in most countries, Chinese students don't tend to learn coding unless they are studying a technology-based university degree. But in a nation locked in an ever-closer embrace with artificial intelligence, there's no better time to get your kid hooked on Java.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On the eve of China's annual Journalists' Day, the country's state media introduced audiences to the latest additions to its team: two artificial intelligence-powered news anchors.

Xinhua News Agency debuted the digital avatars of two television journalists - English-language anchor Zhang Zhao and his Chinese-language counterpart Qiu Hao - on Wednesday. The AI-powered news anchors, according to the outlet, will improve television reporting and be used to generate videos, especially for breaking news on its digital and social media platforms.

"I'm an English artificial intelligence anchor," Zhang's digital doppelganger said in introduction during his first news telecast, blinking his eyes and raising his eyebrows throughout the video. "This is my very first day in Xinhua News Agency ... I will work tirelessly to keep you informed, as texts will be typed into my system uninterrupted."

A video clip shows an AI anchor talking to an audience. From Xinhua's public WeChat account

Co-created by Xinhua and search engine company Sogou, the newscast incorporates cutting-edge technology like facial recognition, deep learning, 3D reconstructions of human faces, machine translation, and facial expression modeling, according to Chen Wei, a voice technology development manager at Sogou. He added that it took the company three weeks to model an individual AI anchor and that the new technology will liberate the labor force.

"The tech can be used for various situations, such as for news broadcasters, virtual teachers, virtual doctors, and virtual customer service," Chen told Sixth Tone.

Xinhua's push for automation has left many wondering whether news anchors and reporters - jobs that once exclusively belonged to humans - would be replaced by machines. On the Chinese internet, netizens questioned if the AI versions of the journalists would seem as real as the human reporters.

"It looks like anchors will lose their jobs," one user commented on microblogging site Weibo. "The AI's voice is too stiff, and it has trouble making the right pauses during speech," another user wrote.

With AI being developed and adopted at an unprecedented pace, many experts are concerned that it could disrupt and devastate the labor market in countries like China that would struggle to compete with such advanced technology. However, a new report by the consultancy PricewaterhouseCoopers suggested that AI would not hurt, but instead would help contribute to a net gain of around 90 million jobs in China over the next two decades.

This is not the first time Xinhua has turned to automated solutions for its reporting. In April 2017, a professor from the University of Science and Technology of China developed an interactive robot named " Jiajia" that would "revolutionize journalism." Jiajia was able to deliver speeches, make micro facial expressions, and move its body parts during interviews like flesh-and-blood reporters. Other outlets, including Southern Metropolis Daily, have also jumped on the bandwagon, using a " robot reporter " to write headlines and news stories.

But Chen from Sogou said that despite the technological advancements, humans will still be more versatile than the machines. "AI anchors are created to assist humans in their reporting, not replace them," he said. "Machines can replace the faculty of perception in part, but there's no way that machines can replace humans in terms of high-level activities such as recognition."
Editor: Bibek Bhandari. (Header image: A screen shows an AI anchor speaking at the World Internet Conference in Wuzhen, Zhejiang province, Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2018. VCG)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AI Anchors: Xinhua Debuts Digital Doppelgangers for Their Journalists

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On the eve of China's annual Journalists' Day, the country's state media introduced audiences to the latest additions to its team: two artificial intelligence-powered news anchors. Xinhua News Agency debuted the digital avatars of two television journalists - English-language anchor Zhang Zhao and his Chinese-language counterpart Qiu Hao - on Wednesday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SHANGHAI - The concrete jungle of Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park was once thronging with investors looking to finance China's burgeoning tech whizzes. But these days, few people visit 38-year-old Xia Qing's lab, once a haven for innovators.

"In its heyday three years ago, we had 50 to 60 visitors coming to our makerspace every open night - around 10 were investors looking for businesses," says Xia, the co-founder of Mushroom Cloud, one of the first makerspaces in China, as he uses a giant laser cutter. "Now if 20 [visitors] show up in a night, that's not bad."

Times have changed for makers - people who like to tinker, experiment, and create electronic hardware from scratch - and their communal workshops, or makerspaces. The maker culture originated in the San Francisco Bay Area in the mid-2000s, while China's maker movement began in 2010 with Taiwanese startup entrepreneur David Li opening China's first makerspace Xinchejian in Shanghai. In the ensuing five years, China's maker culture largely flew under the public's radar, known only to the community's hobbyists, tinkers, and hardware engineers.

But in 2015, the central government heralded this once-underground movement as part of an ambitious plan to bolster China's innovation and entrepreneurship. This prompted a stampede of dubiously named makerspaces hoping to take advantage of the investment surge. Now, however, the bubble's burst, the money's evaporated, and many authentic, original makerspaces like Xia's are left in similar straits: with mountains of resources, but almost no one to use them.

Soldering tools on a maker's desk at Xinchejian, in Shanghai, June 21, 2017. Wu Huiyuan/Sixth Tone
A Call to 'Make'
"When was the last time you saw 'maker' or 'makerspace' mentioned in any government report?" Xia asks me with a shrug.

Makerspaces are workshops that offer components, machines, and training to makers. They can operate independently, funded by rent and membership fees, or within sponsor schools or companies. Xia's co-creation Mushroom Cloud, for example, was backed by a robotics company. Xia, who was one of the first to join China's first makerspace Xinchejian, describes original maker culture as being "about democratizing manufacturing," referring to how commercialization has taken away people's ability to make things on their own. "We feel it's especially crucial to spread maker culture in China," Xia tells me. "We want to revive interest in hands-on making among exam-oriented Chinese people and encourage them to think outside the box. We want a makerspace to be a place where everyone can come, create, and communicate."

But the central government had loftier ambitions - and a different definition of the concept. To officials, makerspaces weren't just about hobbyists " learning by doing"; they had the potential to create wealth and jobs, and realize a much-touted policy goal of " mass innovation and entrepreneurship."

On Jan. 4, 2015, Premier Li Keqiang and a team of around 20 scientists and business leaders visited Chaihuo Makerspace in the southern city of Shenzhen - a visit that would change the course of China's until then little-known maker scene. "Premier Li was very excited," says the makerspace's manager Ye Yu. "Looking at the makers' projects in the makerspace, he kept repeating the words 'mass innovation and entrepreneurship,' over and over." Two days later, China Central Television broadcast the visit. A clip of Premier Li interacting with a robotic arm in the tiny, packed makerspace sent a strong signal: The government wanted makerspaces to be a driving force for China's economic growth. "Overnight, everyone knew the words 'maker' and 'makerspace'," says Ye.

Chaihuo Makerspace in Shenzhen, Guangdong province, Oct. 18, 2018. Xue Yujie/Sixth Tone

The government's Made in China 2025 strategy, published in 2015, laid out a plan to promote innovation-led economic growth, and to change China's focus from low-cost manufacturing to innovation, creativity, and design. "The government wanted to persuade people to stop copying and build their own things," says Ye. "Makerspaces were a big part of its plan to make that happen." The government also saw makerspaces as a potential way to address the growing numbers of unemployed graduates. As Li says in the CCTV clip, "Startups and entrepreneurship are one way to solve the employment problem, and makerspaces could be where such startups are born."

After Li's visit, China's maker culture received unprecedented attention. Not only did the term "maker" make its debut in the central government's annual work report in 2015, it was ranked one of the top 10 internet buzzwords that same year. "The word 'maker' was suddenly heard, known, and even misinterpreted by the country," says Ye. "People thought makers are the same as entrepreneurs, and makerspaces are the same as 'startup factories.'"

Fueled by this interpretation and their emphasis on entrepreneurship, central and local governments rolled out favorable policies that required makerspaces to demonstrate that they were supporting this goal. Makerspaces, for instance, were required to show how many startups and patents they had helped register and how much venture capital the startups had received. All of a sudden, companies, schools, and individuals jumped on the bandwagon. "Everybody became a maker overnight," says Takasu Masakazu, a Japanese engineer and maker-culture evangelist. "If you walked around Shenzhen, you could see maker cafes, maker barber shops, maker restaurants, maker bakeries ... Maker! Maker! Maker! Of course, there was a bubble ballooning behind them."

The Burst Bubble

The government's push to turn makerspaces into moneymaking schemes saw a swarm of investors flood the market. But it didn't boost innovation in the way the government might have hoped.

After the government's maker push, the previously quiet makerspaces were flooded with unfamiliar new faces, says Xia, the Mushroom Cloud co-founder. "A lot of investors showed up either to look for projects that they could monetize, or to build their own makerspaces. It was quite weird and overwhelming, because we're not incubators." Xia points to a model solar system made out of a shoebox and an electric harp. "Why would investors want to commercialize that? We just made it for fun."

Over in Shenzhen, Chaihuo Makerspace's Ye grew concerned about the sudden surge in so-called makerspaces that hoped to take advantage of the buzz and government subsidies. Although one of Chaihuo's former makers went on to found Makeblock - a robotics company now worth $367 million that helps educate children in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics - Ye has never been focused on pushing her makerspace members to make a profit. "We never helped a maker in the hopes of making them a unicorn [a startup valued at over $1 billion]. We just want to be a nursery garden of innovators."

By contrast, Ye believes many self-identified makerspaces are really incubators, accelerators, or co-working spaces - useful spaces for the startup community, but hardly spaces for like-minded creators to encourage hands-on experimentation and tinkering. While official figures put China's makerspace numbers at 5,500, with a predicted increase to 11,640 by 2021, a 2016 report by the British Council found there were closer to 100 spaces in China that could realistically be called makerspaces - the others provide little-to-no access to tools.

An electronics market in Huaqiangbei, the 'Silicon Valley of Hardware,' which is valued by makers all around the world for its wide variety of cheap hardware parts, in Shenzhen, Guangdong province, Oct. 18, 2018. Xue Yujie/Sixth Tone

In Huaqiangbei, Shenzhen's electronic and manufacturing hub that makers call the "Silicon Valley of Hardware," I stumble across a makerspace company called Segmaker Space. The veteran makers I talked to for this story all describe makerspaces as looking like a messy workshop, but this space looks more like an open-plan office, fitted with rows of cubicles.

"We're essentially an incubator and an accelerator," says its manager, Ji Jialin. "Although Segmaker has a small room with three 3D printers, most renting the space are software startups." When asked why they had called Segmaker a makerspace rather than an incubator, Ji replied that it was to "respond to the government's call," adding that in 2015, it was easy to get government funding if you registered to open a makerspace. According to her, most of Shenzhen's makerspaces, including Segmaker, were built in 2015 after Li's visit to Chaihuo Makerspace. But since many spaces didn't offer equipment, training, or other services, they struggled to attract members, Ji tells me, sitting in a spacious, empty lounge intended for her makerspace's members.

At a café in another suburb of Shenzhen called "Optical Valiey Public Cheative [sic] Space" which also purports to be a makerspace, the waitress is baffled when I ask to see the hardware facilities. "What is a 3D printer? We're just a café," she says, looking at me as if no one has ever asked that question before.

Takasu, the Japanese engineer, says that while maker movements in Japan and the U.S. have grown organically, China's movement developed differently. "In China, much of the maker movement was [due to] an aggressive push by the government using policies and subsidies, but the foundation of making and innovating is still lacking," he tells me. Xia refers to a well-known Chinese idiom, describing the government's attempts as being like a gardener yanking on a plant to make it grow faster, but instead killing it in the process.

Xinchejian makers' pet dog, in Shanghai, June 16, 2017. Wu Huiyuan/Sixth Tone

The negative effects are already becoming apparent, according to Xia, Ye, and Ji. During last month's three-day Shanghai Maker Carnival - an annual fair to showcase makers and makerspaces - participation numbers fell by 25 percent compared with the year before, according to the carnival's organizer. When I visit, a few parents who'd just picked their children up from school are perusing the stalls, while one staffer plays idly with her phone. "2018 has been a tough year for makers and makerspaces," says Carina Lin, PR manager of DFRobot, a Shanghai-based robotics company that organized Shanghai's maker carnival. "Many makerspaces have closed down. I heard it's even worse in Shenzhen."

Reacting to the oversupply of so-called makerspaces, the government and venture capitalists began tightening their purse strings. In October, the Ministry of Science and Technology delisted 24 disqualified makerspaces that lacked equipment and services, or hadn't made progress on incubating startups. Media commentators warned it could be the start of "a makerspace winter" since, without government subsidies and venture capitalists' investments, many makerspaces could only scrape by from the rent they got from their members. According to a report released by Beijing Makerspace Alliance last year, around 55 percent of makerspaces were experiencing a financial loss, and the average occupancy rate of makerspaces was only 30 percent - well below the 60 percent many makerspaces need to break-even.

"There are already too many so-called makerspaces, but there aren't enough makers or startups. Such projects might survive in a rising market, but as capital diminishes, many of them will die out," says Ji, pointing at one of the few hardware startups in her incubator - a guy controlling a Segway-like scooter with a remote. "I don't know how long he will hold up: It has no edge in the scooter market," she says.

But it seems that authentic makerspaces like Mushroom Cloud - spaces which truly encourage members to innovate - have never benefited from the government's maker push. Subsidies have only been available for those focusing on commercial aspects of making, like incubators, accelerators, and communal working spaces. Even Xinchejian, the makerspace responsible for introducing maker culture to the country, hasn't received any support.

"If those so-called makerspaces don't provide facilities, services, and training, are they any different from Starbucks? And yet, it was those spaces that got government funding," Xia says. "We want the real maker culture to grow, but first we need to figure out how to survive."

Xia Qing, the co-founder of Mushroom Cloud Makerspace, instructs visiting students in Shanghai, Oct. 15, 2018. Xue Yujie/Sixth Tone
Back on Track?
As he sits in a café across the road from the Shanghai maker carnival, Takasu explains that makerspaces are hardly the first concept to be whipped into a bubble by Chinese officials and investors: "When they see an opportunity, they want to milk it for all it's worth. In 2014, it was shared bikes. In 2015, it was makerspaces - now it's AI." Grabbing my notebook, he draws a chart showing a slow-but-steady curve - the normal development of technology or industries. He draws another chart: exponential growth, followed by a ruthless nosedive. "This is how China is," Takasu says. "The capital is exhausted, but luckily, maker culture will be back on track."

To original makerspaces and their founders like Xia, the burst bubble could be a good sign. "The whole maker movement in China moved too fast these past three years, pushed by the rush of capital. Now it's time to rethink what kind of maker culture is best for China," Xia says. Although he's worried about a lack of money, he remains positive about where the movement is headed.

While we talk, a young man in glasses walks in, puts down his backpack, and heads into the laser-cutting lab. "He's one of our makers," says Xia, showing me a model of his project. It's a wireless iPhone charger designed to look like a glowing spell-circle used in witchcraft rituals. The maker, a 30-year-old engineer named Sun Haoqin, tells me he got the idea from YouTube, but no one has yet successfully made it. "I wanted to make a real one that could work," he says, cutting wood components in the lab.

Sun Haoqin, a 30-year-old maker, is working on a wireless iPhone charger, his latest project at Mushroom Cloud Makerspace in Shanghai, Oct. 15, 2018. Xue Yujie/Sixth Tone

"This type of maker has always existed in China - we just need to find them," Xia says. "They're not a community of hungry entrepreneurs motivated by capital." He doesn't believe there's a lack of innovation and entrepreneurship. Instead, he thinks such things require years of practice and reflection: They don't just happen overnight by having money thrown at them.

Even a bit of imitation can help, says Takasu, referring to China's history of making counterfeit, copycat goods: "If you want to start a good rock band like The Beatles, you first need to write 100 songs that sound exactly like The Beatles. Then, maybe when you write your 101st song, you'll start to be inspired yourself, and add things to your song. This is innovation."

As I leave Mushroom Cloud, a group of teenagers in school uniforms arrive at the makerspace to take their first maker-education course. Maker education that teaches children hands-on creativity, critical thinking, and freedom to experiment has been springing up across China over the past two years, though even Takasu admits it has the potential to be another bubble. The students look around, their faces glowing with curiosity and excitement. Xia runs over to greet them: "Welcome! Let me show you our equipment room. But first, a quick question: What is a 'maker'?"
Editor: Julia Hollingsworth. (Header image: Maker supporters attend an open house at Xinchejian, in Shanghai, June 21, 2017. Wu Huiyuan/Sixth Tone)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Made in China: The Boom and Bust of Makerspaces

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SHANGHAI - The concrete jungle of Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park was once thronging with investors looking to finance China's burgeoning tech whizzes. But these days, few people visit 38-year-old Xia Qing's lab, once a haven for innovators.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The negative effects that industrial revolutions unleash on human society always stem from an overestimation and abuse of the power of new technologies. It has never been more important to heed this point than today. Big data and artificial intelligence are bringing forth a new industrial revolution, and the blind worship of these innovations is already on full display in some quarters.

In early September, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the development of artificial intelligence technology has created "huge and unpredictable new opportunities and threats." He went on to declare that, "Whoever leads this field will rule the world." In the Russian leader's eyes, AI is not only a major strategic opportunity, but the key to his country's survival.

China is also keen to lead the way in AI. On July 8, the State Council issued a "New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan." Promoting the development of the AI sector is of course a very good idea, but the crucial question is how best to accomplish this goal. Is it, as some have suggested, through state planning? To that question, we can answer with great certainty: the planned approach will not work. Those who use the planning method can only follow in the footsteps of others, which implies lagging behind.

In the history of mankind, all technological revolutions - all moments of revolutionary innovation - have emerged from the market and from entrepreneurs acting on private initiative. They are the final result of a survival-of-the-fittest competition.

In the debate about AI, some prominent figures have also asserted that artificial intelligence could be capable of producing a new form of planned economy. One example they cite is the financial sector, an important application field for AI. If investment decisions can be made by machines, isn't this a kind of planned economy?

The boundaries of the planned economy have therefore re-emerged as an important and fundamental question for the future.

Before answering this question, however, the first thing I would emphasize is that China's biggest problems are systemic, and should not be thought of as an assortment of technical issues that can be fixed individually. Ultimately, it is not important whether China is a global leader in this or that industry. The important thing is whether the national economy as a whole is doing well.

Last year, a survey by McKinsey found that China's labor productivity is between 15 and 30 percent of the OECD average. This means that China is still several times less productive than the developed nations of the world. There is a general backwardness in China's economy that dwarfs the progress made in a few cutting-edge fields.

Labor productivity is low, but at the same time labor costs are very high. In 2016, unit labor costs in China were higher than in the United States and Western Europe, according to analysis by the Economist Intelligence Unit. An Oxford Economics survey conducted the same year found that China's labor costs were only 4 percent lower than in the United States. In other words, if we are looking purely at labor costs, it is now about as expensive to make a product in China as in the United States. This is strange.

If labor costs are so high, does this mean that Chinese workers are earning too much money? No. China's household income accounts for a smaller percentage of GDP than in many other countries.

Labor costs are high; workers don't get much money; and enterprises bear a lot of the costs without getting much either. How can all this be true? The answer is that the government is taking all that money for itself. The Chinese government's income is among the highest in the world, and this causes workers and enterprises to bear huge institutional costs.

Systemic issues like these are the ones we need to solve. We can focus on fixing technical issues in the Chinese economy, such as upgrading traditional industries by integrating new, cutting-edge technologies, and these efforts are sure to produce positive results. But they cannot solve the wider economic problems we face.

What's more, industrial upgrading has the potential to create negative as well as positive effects.

When people mistakenly believe that the latest scientific and technical breakthroughs surpass all the knowledge accumulated by humanity over thousands of years, they sometimes rush to replace the socio-economic systems produced in recent centuries, which often leads to disastrous results. A consensus has been reached that the emergence of big data and artificial intelligence are leading to another industrial revolution. But when discussing where these changes will lead us, we need to look calmly at the many negative lessons from past industrial revolutions: in particular our tendency to overestimate and abuse the power of new technologies. Industrial revolutions are not always positive in all respects and we must be wary of the possible dangers involved.

One of the worst lessons from previous industrial revolutions is the creation of state-ownership dominated central planning systems. This idea first surfaced during the first two industrial revolutions. At that time, some ultra-left intellectuals mistakenly believed that human beings had acquired the ability to understand everything, and that they therefore had the ability to control all aspects of society.

The mistaken belief that the social planner is able to know what is good for everyone, can take care of everyone's welfare, and can plan for every technological change, all production needs, and everything else: This is the underlying idea that led to central planning. Because there had never been an industrial revolution before in human history, some intellectuals overestimated their own power, and this led them to abuse it. At its height, one-third of the world's population lived in state-owned and centrally-planned economies.

Another common problem arising from the hubris of intellectuals is environmental destruction. There are two clear examples of this. The first is huge water conservancy projects. People think that they have the ability to plan our rivers, lakes and land. They build dams to make huge artificial lakes. Then, when this produces catastrophic consequences, they realize that there are a lot of things they don't know. Even if a government with huge resources and power has good intentions, it can still cause disasters.

A second example is climate change, a problem that did not exist before the industrial revolution, and the cause is the same - people mistakenly believing that they are smarter than they are. When Hurricane Irma swept through the Caribbean, with wind speeds reaching roughly 300 kilometers per hour, 95 percent of the buildings on some islands were completely flattened. This natural disaster was manmade, caused by people who believed that we could concentrate all resources on solving society's problems. But in the process, so much carbon was emitted from fossil fuels that the climate has been destabilized. These old lessons are still far from being fully absorbed, even as the big data and AI revolution looms. Some scientists have issued warnings, but most focus on ethical issues like the possibility of using robots in warfare. I want to emphasize another problem, that of the system and the relationship between the market and the central plan.

Some governments and large, monopolistic companies may try to use their mastery of big data to control society, to replace the market - to use technological progress against society. It would bring disaster. We must rather make sure that this industrial revolution truly benefits mankind.
This article was first published on Caixin Global, and has been republished with their permission. The article can be found on their website here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
China Should Learn From History Before Embracing AI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The negative effects that industrial revolutions unleash on human society always stem from an overestimation and abuse of the power of new technologies. It has never been more important to heed this point than today. Big data and artificial intelligence are bringing forth a new industrial revolution, and the blind worship of these innovations is already on full display in some quarters.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Few scientific fields are more entwined with philosophy than artificial intelligence (AI). In 1950, the article "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" appeared in the British magazine Mind. Written by the British scientist Alan Turing, it contained his proposal for the famed Turing test, a means of judging whether a machine was able to exhibit intelligent behavior indistinguishable from that of a human. In an attempt to answer questions related to the nature of intelligence, Turing's behaviorist approach to the theory of the mind finally closed the gap between the fields of machine programming design and psychological research.

As a field, the philosophy of artificial intelligence has yet to truly catch on in China. Conditions are slightly better abroad, where it is acknowledged - albeit tepidly - as a branch of philosophy. For example, Margaret A. Boden, a British philosopher with degrees in computing, biology, and psychology, as well as close contacts with leading AI researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Carnegie Mellon University, has established herself as one of the field's leading figures. Chinese scholars, by comparison, do a poor job of integrating the humanities and the sciences.

Yet there is evident public enthusiasm in China for learning about the effects of AI. Earlier this year, a computer program called AlphaGo inflicted overwhelming defeats on the country's foremost players of Go, a strategic board game that has ancient roots in China. The news left an indelible mark on the minds of many Chinese, who have traditionally seen Go proficiency as a mark of a keen intellect.

There is a social aspect to China's fascination with AI, too. More and more of the aspirational middle-class are expressing anxiety over the impending automation of work, and remain unsure whether to see AI development as a force for liberation or impoverishment. This attitude is different from how people tend to see AI in, say, Japan, where groundbreaking developments in AI during the 1990s have stalled and the technology is mostly being used to ease the country's aging population problems.

In addition, the cresting wave of Chinese sci-fi writing, with celebrated author Liu Cixin at the forefront of it, has popularized the idea that AI presents us with potentially limitless - not to mention threatening - possibilities.

The average natural scientist busies themself with finding answers to specialty-related problems and is rarely called upon to reflect on the legitimacy of their work. Philosophers, however, are concerned with grand strategy: Why, in the end, do we pursue these goals in the first place?

The Dartmouth Conference in 1956 was a milestone in the development of artificial intelligence. Held over the summer at Dartmouth College in the United States, academics traveled from all over to try and hash out how advances in computing technology could be utilized to develop artificial intelligence.

Although no philosophers attended the conference, it nonetheless had a deeply philosophical bent. First of all, the conference's participants gamely discussed the more profound questions of their field, such as how to achieve human-level machine intelligence, and not just how to use an algorithm to solve a particular problem. Happily, the United States preserved this "philosophical aspect" of AI research well past the conference's conclusion.

The goal of AI research is for manmade machines to be able to imitate human intelligence and actions, and eventually to realize machine intelligence. Clearly, to be able to do so, we must first answer the question: "What is intelligence?" Those who believe the nature of intelligence lies in the ability of an entity to perform the same tasks humans can will tend to focus their energies on cramming as much information as possible into the machine's so-called black box - its "brain."

Viewed from this perspective, it is the lack of a clearly defined research target that has caused philosophical differences between AI researchers when it comes to the nature of "intelligence." It has also had a significant impact on the technology used.

The classic philosophical conundrum of traditional AI is known as the frame problem. As humans, we know that when we, for example, grab a toy block, the only thing we have changed is its position. We have done nothing to affect, say, its color, shape, or size. However, computer systems must be told that objects do not change arbitrarily. Unless you clearly state this fact while defining the "grab" function, it will not work as intended.

Any such definition is necessarily complex, since it requires the programmer to first run through every characteristic of a given object, and make the system exclude certain "frame axioms" for each of these characteristics before it can perform the action. In simple terms, this basically means that when you tell the robot to "grab" something, it understands that this does not mean it can change the shape, size, color, or structure of the block. However, the goal of computing is to be able to execute theoretically simple tasks with relatively fewer resources, something that's in serious conflict with the current reality.

In fact, some experts have already pointed out that modern training methods for deep learning machines - for example, applied AI technology such as a Go player or a driverless car - require vast sample sizes. Inputting small samples often leads systems involving complex parameters to experience problems related to "overfitting," a phenomenon that occurs when highly specialized systems perfectly predict the data they are trained with, but fail to adequately predict future outcomes based on new data. For example, AlphaGo is already better than any human Go player, but the same technology can't be used on China's best table tennis stars.

China's AI buffs must first set our eyes on helping the global AI community achieve artificial general intelligence (AGI), whereby machines could hypothetically perform any intellectual task a human being can. By applying algorithms to cognitive linguistics, we can develop a meaning-based universal inference engine - essentially an adaptable form of human brain-like technology - combine it with resource-conscious algorithms, and add in concepts from cognitive psychology, including artificial emotions.

AI will not have the power to challenge human intelligence until it is flexible enough to mimic humans in working and thinking across diverse goals, an eventuality so far off that it is not worth China's middle classes losing sleep over it yet. It bodes well that many Chinese take a keen interest in AI, but a lasting edge in AI research won't be perceptible until we see rising public interest not in sci-fi, but in basic science.
Translator: Kilian O'Donnell; Editors: Lu Hongyong and Matthew Walsh. (Header image: Two women interact with a robot at a health industry exhibition in Chongqing, Sept. 17, 2017.Chen Chao/VCG)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why So Many Ordinary Chinese Misunderstand AI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Few scientific fields are more entwined with philosophy than artificial intelligence (AI). In 1950, the article "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" appeared in the British magazine Mind. Written by the British scientist Alan Turing, it contained his proposal for the famed Turing test, a means of judging whether a machine was able to exhibit intelligent behavior indistinguishable from that of a human.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Shanghai Court Adopts New AI Assistant

The technology can reportedly 'ascertain facts' and 'identify evidence' during trials.

A Shanghai court has become the first in China to officially adopt a new artificial intelligence-supported software to facilitate judicial hearings, according to state-owned newspaper Legal Daily.

The Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court on Wednesday used a technology dubbed the 206 System, jointly developed by tech company iFlytek and the country's judicial, procuratorial, and public security organs. While the 206 System saw test runs in several Chinese cities last year - and different AI technology has been implemented in other courtrooms - the Shanghai court has become the first to formally adopt this new software.

The 206 System can accept verbal commands to display relevant information on digital screens. It is also able to transcribe speech throughout hearings and identify speakers according to their roles: judges, prosecutors, defendants, and more.

"At the trial, it can assist the judge to ascertain facts, identify evidence, protect the rights to sue and to a fair ruling, and ensure that the guilty are punished justly and the innocent not subject to criminal investigation," said Guo Weiqing, president of the Shanghai court.

In recent years, judicial reforms using smart technology have been implemented to grant China's courts and tribunals access to the nation's central database of legal documents. Under the smart court system, the country had data on 122 million legal cases and over 6 million trial records by the end of 2017.
Editor: Bibek Bhandari. (Header image: A projection shows a judge deciding on a ruling with the help of AI technology at a court in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province, April 20, 2018. VCG)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Shanghai court has become the first in China to officially adopt a new artificial intelligence-supported software to facilitate judicial hearings, according to state-owned newspaper Legal Daily. The Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People's Court on Wednesday used a technology dubbed the 206 System, jointly developed by tech company iFlytek and the country's judicial, procuratorial, and public security organs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's a common fear that artificial intelligence could steal our jobs, but in the case of one of China's leading voice recognition companies, it might be more of a case of humans taking work from AI.

On Friday, iFlytek was hit with accusations that it hired humans to fake its simultaneous interpretation tools, which are supposedly powered by AI.

In an open letter posted on Quora-like Q&A platform Zhihu, interpreter Bell Wang claimed he was one of a team of simultaneous interpreters who helped translate the 2018 International Forum on Innovation and Emerging Industries Development on Thursday. The forum claimed to use iFlytek's automated interpretation service.

While a Japanese professor spoke in English at the conference on Thursday morning, a screen behind him showed both an English transcription of what he was saying, and what appeared to be a simultaneous translation into Chinese which was credited to iFlytek. Wang claims that the Chinese wasn't a simultaneous translation, but was instead a transcription of an interpretation by himself and a fellow interpreter. "I was deeply disgusted," Wang wrote in the letter.

In the open letter, Wang pointed to two examples to support his claim. First, iFlytek's tool appeared to struggle with the Japanese professor's English accent, rendering "Davos Forum" as "Devil's Forum." Despite the transcription error, the Chinese translation came out correct - just as it had in Wang's partner's translation. Second, the majority of the Chinese translation was the same as what Wang and his partner had interpreted, including a tricky conjunction which Wang believes would have been translated literally had it really been translated by AI. Despite his concerns, Wang said that he didn't confront the forum organizer or iFlytek staff at the forum.

In a post on Friday on social media platform Weibo, iFlytek's CEO Hu Yu said the tool used in the conference was a transcribing tool - not a translation tool. Earlier, financial news outlet Securities Times reported that in response to the letter, iFlytek had directed media to remarks that the company's president Liu Qingfeng made on Monday, when he said: "Currently machines still cannot replace interpreters. Frankly, a combination of human and machine is where we're headed." When contacted by Sixth Tone on Friday, iFlytek's public relations officer denied that Liu's words constituted an official response and said that the company is currently investigating the accusation. Sixth Tone also reached out to the forum organizers, but received no response.

In a video of the forum, an artificial voice read out Wang and his partner's interpretation, according to Wang. Wang believes that iFlytek must have transcribed the interpreting they had done in the morning and used a robot to read it, just to prove their AI worked. "This is obviously a scam," Wang wrote.

The livestream of the event was no longer available by Friday afternoon. Wang had not responded to Sixth Tone's interview request by time of publication. Following the open letter, other interpreters came forward, claiming that they had been offered work interpreting on iFlytek's behalf.

This is not the first time iFlytek has been accused of disguising works done by flesh-and-blood interpreters as the work of their AI-powered product. Last year, another simultaneous interpreter accused iFlytek of hiding their existence from the keynote speakers while providing interpretation services that appeared to come from the AI product.
Additional reporting: Liya Fan; Editor: Julia Hollingsworth. (Header image: A Japanese professor gives a speech on IFLYT's AI tech in Shanghai, Sept. 20, 2018. @bellwang fro Zhihu)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AI Company Accused of Using Humans to Fake Its AI

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's a common fear that artificial intelligence could steal our jobs, but in the case of one of China's leading voice recognition companies, it might be more of a case of humans taking work from AI. On Friday, iFlytek was hit with accusations that it hired humans to fake its simultaneous interpretation tools, which are supposedly powered by AI.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ALL WORKERS must have days when they wonder whether their managers possess any intelligence at all. But next time you are puzzled by a boss's decision, consider this possibility: the manager relied on artificial intelligence (AI) when considering their options. A survey by Microsoft of 800 business leaders drawn equally from eight countries (France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Russia, Switzerland, the UK and the US) found they are increasingly keen on the idea of AI.

The survey found that 41% of high-growth companies were already implementing AI, as against only 19% of those defined as low growth. There is no proof of causation, of course; the high-growth companies have not necessarily prospered because they have used AI. The explanation could simply be that high-growth companies have more money to spend on technology and AI is the latest fashion.
Get our daily newsletter
Clearly, their experience so far has not discouraged them. Almost all the high-growth companies (93%) intend to invest in AI in the next 1-3 years, and more than half of them expect to use AI to improve their decision-making over the coming year.

So what are the ways in which managers hope to benefit from AI? Microsoft's David Carmona points to four areas. The first is based around customers; identifying for example, which customers are likely to "churn", allowing the company to find ways to keep them on board. A second approach is to use AI to optimise business processes. Third, AI can be used to make hiring decisions. Fourth, managers can use AI to identify new products or areas of expansion. Companies have been using AI already for issues such as quality assurance, predictive maintenance and adding digital assistants to consumer products like cars. Others use "HR bots" to help employees who have questions about their work.

More detailed questions reveal that "motivating and inspiring employees" is the area that managers think might be the single most useful way to invest in AI. So next time your boss pays you a compliment, remember: an algorithm may have made them do it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ALL WORKERS must have days when they wonder whether their managers possess any intelligence at all. But next time you are puzzled by a boss's decision, consider this possibility: the manager relied on artificial intelligence (AI) when considering their options.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.akkaducloud.com/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Country: China

Company: Akkadu

Facebook: @akkaducloud

Jonathan started Akkadu to give the world a means to communicate without hesitation. Akkadu is a cloud-based platform that connects those who need translation services to a community of interpreters that are remote or on-site. Additionally, Jonathan envisioned providing the global community a space to experience inspiring content through events, seminars, podcast and workshops. As Akkadu is the bridge to the experience, his dream of a global society that educates, communicates and entertains without the limitations has come true.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Facebook: @akkaducloud Jonathan started Akkadu to give the world a means to communicate without hesitation. Akkadu is a cloud-based platform that connects those who need translation services to a community of interpreters that are remote or on-site. Additionally, Jonathan envisioned providing the global community a space to experience inspiring content through events, seminars, podcast and workshops.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Trump signed an executive order Monday meant to spur the development and regulation of artificial intelligence, technology that many experts believe will define the future of everything from consumer products to health care to warfare.

A.I. experts across industry, academia and government have long called on the Trump administration to make the development of artificial intelligence a major priority. Last spring, worried that the United States was not keeping pace with China and other countries, Jim Mattis, then the defense secretary, sent a memo to the White House imploring the president to create a national strategy on A.I.

Now, Mr. Trump has taken that step, though this "American A.I. Initiative" might not be as bold as some had hoped.

The executive order aimed to better educate workers in the field, improve access to the cloud computing services and data needed to build A.I. systems, and promote cooperation with foreign powers. But the order did not set aside funds for A.I. research and development, and the administration provided few details on how it planned put its new policies into effect.

Image

President Trump is expected to sign the "American A.I. Initiative" executive order on Monday. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times

The United States is engaged in an increasingly bitter trade war with China. And while American companies like Google and Amazon are now leaders in A.I., experts in the field are concerned that China could surpass the United States in the development of technologies that will power surveillance systems and autonomous weapons as well as driverless cars and a wide range of internet services.

In July 2017, Chinese unveiled a plan to become the world leader in A.I., aiming to create an industry worth $150 billion to its economy by 2030, and two Chinese cities promised to invest $7 billion in the effort. Other governments, too, began making large investments, including South Korea, Britain, France and Canada.

In the United States, the Defense Department has accelerated efforts to embrace A.I., shifting $75 million of its annual budget to a new office that will develop these technologies. Other government agencies also have major projects in the works. But many A.I. experts have worried that the top talent in the United States is moving to companies like Google and Amazon and away from government agencies.

Last year, these concerns increased when Google pulled out of a project to build A.I for the Pentagon after employees protested that the technology they were working on could be used for lethal purposes. Companies like Google are also expanding their operations in countries like China, France and Canada, as the A.I. talent in those countries continues to expand.

In a briefing with reporters on Sunday, a senior administration official said the White House would increase efforts to educate American workers in the field. The administration plans to work with the National Council for the American Worker to create educational efforts through industry and academia, and it will call on government agencies to develop fellowships related to A.I.

The official did not provide specifics on how the United States will track the progress of these efforts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump Signs Executive Order Promoting Artificial Intelligence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Trump signed an executive order Monday meant to spur the development and regulation of artificial intelligence, technology that many experts believe will define the future of everything from consumer products to health care to warfare. A.I. experts across industry, academia and government have long called on the Trump administration to make the development of artificial intelligence a major priority.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Image

Sören Schwertfeger at ShanghaiTech University, where a sizable grant has allowed him to set up an artificial intelligence lab. Credit Credit Tim Franco for The New York Times

HONG KONG - Sören Schwertfeger finished his postdoctorate research on autonomous robots in Germany, and seemed set to go to Europe or the United States, where artificial intelligence was pioneered and established.

Instead, he went to China.

"You couldn't have started a lab like mine elsewhere," Mr. Schwertfeger said.

The balance of power in technology is shifting. China, which for years watched enviously as the West invented the software and the chips powering today's digital age, has become a major player in artificial intelligence, what some think may be the most important technology of the future. Experts widely believe China is only a step behind the United States.

China's ambitions mingle the most far-out sci-fi ideas with the needs of an authoritarian state: Philip K. Dick meets George Orwell. There are plans to use it to predict crimes, lend money, track people on the country's ubiquitous closed-circuit cameras, alleviate traffic jams, create self-guided missiles and censor the internet.

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, 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.

"It's a race in the new generation of computing," said James Lewis, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "The difference is that China seems to think it's a race and America doesn't."

Image

Sören Schwertfeger testing his latest space detection and scanning robot. Credit Tim Franco for The New York Times

For Mr. Schwertfeger, the money mattered. He received a grant six times larger than what he might have gotten in Europe or America. That enabled him to set up a full artificial intelligence lab, with an assistant, a technician and a group of Ph.D. students.

"It's almost impossible for assistant professors to get this much money," he said. "The research funding is shrinking in the U.S. and Europe. But it is definitely expanding in China."

Mr. Schwertfeger's lab, which is part of ShanghaiTech University, works on ways for machines, without any aid from humans, to avoid obstacles. Decked out with wheeled robots, drones and sensors, the lab works on ways for computers to make their own maps and to improve the performance of robots with tasks like finding objects - specifically, people - during search-and-rescue operations.

Much of China's artificial intelligence push is similarly peaceful. Still, its prowess and dedication have set off alarms within the United States' defense establishment. The Defense Department found that Chinese money has been pouring into American artificial intelligence companies - some of the same ones it had been looking to for future weapons systems.

Quantifying China's spending push is difficult, because authorities there disclose little. But experts say it looks to be considerable. Numerous provinces and cities are spending billions on developing robotics, and a part of that funding is likely to go to artificial intelligence research. For example, the relatively unknown city of Xiangtan, in China's Hunan province, has pledged $2 billion toward developing robots and artificial intelligence. Other places have direct incentives for the A.I. industry. In Suzhou, leading artificial intelligence companies can get about $800,000 in subsidies for setting up shop locally, while Shenzhen, in southern China, is offering $1 million to support any A.I. project established there.

On a national level, China is working on a system to predict events like terrorist attacks or labor strikes based on possible precursors like labor strife. A paper funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China showed how facial recognition software can be simplified so that it can be more easily integrated with cameras across the country.

China is preparing a concerted nationwide push, according to the two professors who advised on the effort but declined to be identified, because the effort has not yet been made public. While the size wasn't clear, they said, it would most likely result in billions of dollars in spending.

President Trump's proposed budget, meanwhile, would reduce the National Science Foundation's spending on so-called intelligent systems by 10 percent, to about $175 million. Research and development in other areas would also be cut, though the proposed budget does call for more spending on defense research and some supercomputing. The cuts would essentially shift more research and development to private American companies like Google and Facebook.

"The previous administration was preparing for a future with artificial intelligence," said Subbarao Kambhampati, president of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial intelligence. " They were talking about increasing basic research for artificial intelligence. Instead of increases, we are now being significantly affected."

Journalists watching footage of the Google DeepMind Challenge Match between Lee Se-dol, one of the greatest modern players of the ancient board game Go, and the Google-developed AlphaGo. Credit Jung Yeon-Je/Agence France-Presse - Getty Images

China's money won't necessarily translate into dominance. The government's top-down approach, closed-mouth bureaucracy and hoarding of information can hobble research. It threw a tremendous amount of resources toward curing severe acute respiratory syndrome, the deadly virus known as SARS, when it swept through the country 15 years ago. Yet the virus was eventually sequenced and tamed by a small Canadian lab, said Clay Shirky, a professor at N.Y.U. Shanghai and a technology writer.

"It wasn't that anyone was trying to stop the development of a SARS vaccine," Mr. Shirky said. "It's the habit that yes is more risky than no."

Authorities in China are now bringing top-down attention to fixing the problem of too much top-down control. While that may not sound promising, Wang Shengjin, a professor of electronic engineering at China's Tsinghua University, said he had noticed some improvement, such as professional groups sharing information, and authorities who are rolling back limits on professors claiming ownership of their discoveries for commercial purposes.

"The lack of open sources and sharing of information, this has been the reality," Mr. Wang said. "But it has started to change."

At the moment, cooperation and exchanges in artificial intelligence between the United States and China are largely open, at least from the American side. Chinese and American scholars widely publish their findings in journals accessible to all, and researchers from China are major players in America's research institutions.

Chinese tech giants like Baidu, Tencent and Didi Chuxing have opened artificial intelligence labs in America, as have some Chinese start-ups. Over the past six years, Chinese investors helped finance 51 American artificial intelligence companies, contributing to the $700 million raised, according to the recent Pentagon report.

It's unclear how long the cooperation will continue. The Pentagon report urged more controls. And while there are government and private pushes out of China, it is difficult to tell which is which, as Baidu shows.

Baidu is a leader in China's artificial intelligence efforts. It is working on driverless cars. It has turned an app that started as a visual dictionary - take a picture of an object, and your cellphone will tell you what it is - into a site that uses facial recognition to find missing people, a major problem in a country where child kidnapping has been persistent. In one stunning example, it helped a family find a child kidnapped 27 years earlier. DNA testing confirmed the family connection.

Baidu's speech-recognition software - which can accomplish the difficult task of hearing tonal differences in Chinese dialects - is considered top of the class. When Microsoft announced last October that its speech recognition software had surpassed human-level language recognition, Baidu's head of research at the time playfully reminded the American company that his team had accomplished a similar feat a year earlier.

Mr. Schwertfeger and his team working on an automated arm. Credit Tim Franco for The New York Times

In an apparent effort to harness Baidu's breakthroughs, China said this year that it would open a lab that would cooperate with the company on A.I. research. The facility will be headed by two professors with long experience working for government programs designed to catch up to and replace foreign technology. Both professors also worked on a program called the Tsinghua Mobile Robot, according to multiple academic papers published on the topic. Research behind the robot, which in one award is described as a "military-use intelligent ground robot," was sponsored by funding to improve Chinese military capabilities.

Li Wei, a professor involved in the Baidu cooperative effort, spent much of his career at Beihang University, one of China's seven schools of national defense.

A company spokeswoman said: "Baidu develops products and services that improve people's lives. Through its partnership with the A.I. research community, Baidu aims to make a complicated world simpler through technology."

Still, there are advantages in China's developing cutting-edge A.I. on its own. National efforts are aided by access to enormous amounts of data held by Chinese companies and universities, the large number of Chinese engineers being trained on either side of the Pacific and from government backing, said Mr. Wang, of Tsinghua.

Driving that attention is a breakthrough from an American company largely banned in China: Google. In March 2016, a Google artificial intelligence system, AlphaGo, beat a South Korean player at the complicated strategy game Go, which originated in China. This past week, AlphaGo beat the best player in the world, a Chinese national, at a tournament in Wuzhen, China.

The Google event changed the tenor of government discussions about funding, according to several Chinese professors.

"After AlphaGo came out and had such a big impact on the industry," said Zha Hongbin, a professor of machine learning at Peking University, "the content of government discussions got much wider and more concrete." Shortly afterward, the government created a new project on brain-inspired computing, he added.

For all the government support, advances in the field could ultimately backfire, Mr. Shirky said. Artificial intelligence may help China better censor the internet, a task that often blocks Chinese researchers from finding vital information. At the same time, better A.I. could make it easier for Chinese readers to translate articles and other information.

"The fact is," Mr. Shirky said, "unlike automobile engineering, artificial intelligence will lead to surprises. That will make the world considerably less predictable, and that's never been Beijing's favorite characteristic."

Paul Mozur reported from Hong Kong, and John Markoff from San Francisco. Carolyn Zhang in Shanghai contributed research.

Follow Paul Mozur on Twitter @paulmozur and John Markoff @markoff.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page BU1 of the New York edition with the headline: Is China Outsmarting America in Artificial Intelligence?. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
HONG KONG - Sören Schwertfeger finished his postdoctorate research on autonomous robots in Germany, and seemed set to go to Europe or the United States, where artificial intelligence was pioneered and established. Instead, he went to China. "You couldn't have started a lab like mine elsewhere," Mr. Schwertfeger said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Image

Credit Credit Eoin Ryan

Image

Credit Justin Buell

YVES BÉHAR C.E.O. and founder, fuseproject
While artificial intelligence touches so much of what we do today, the current thinking behind A.I. is too limited. To reach A.I.'s potential, we need to think beyond what it does for search, social media, security, and shopping - and beyond making things merely "smarter".

Instead, we should imagine how A.I. can be both smart and compassionate, a combination that can solve the most important human problems. Good design can lead the way by infusing an approach centered around the user and the real needs that A.I. can address.

We should be thinking about A.I. in new contexts - the newborn of the overworked parent, the cancer patient who needs round-the-clock attention, and the child with learning and behavioral difficulties. A.I. holds great promise for them in combination with design that is empathic and follows a few principles.

First, good design should help without intruding. A.I. must free our attention rather than take it away, and it must enhance human connection and abilities rather than replace humans. Great design can create A.I. interfaces that fit discreetly and seamlessly into users' lives, solving problems without creating distraction.

Second, good design can bring A.I.'s benefits to those who otherwise might be left out. That so much of A.I. is currently directed at the affluent contradicts the notion that good design can serve everyone, regardless of age, condition or economic background. We should take the "A.I. for all" approach, and it should follow a human need. Designers and researchers should work together in the early stages of design to identify those needs, develop A.I. that responds compassionately to human demands, and use design to ensure cost-effective, accessible A.I.-enabled products and services.

Third, A.I. should never create emotional dependence. We see this danger in social media, where A.I. traps users in echo chambers and emotional deserts. Thoughtful design can create A.I. experiences that evolve with the user to continuously serve their needs. The combination of good A.I. and good design can ultimately create products that help people live healthier, longer and happier lives.

This is not a purely utopian vision. It is achievable. Developers must recognize that while they can do important, valuable work for a range of commercial products and consumers, the most meaningful A.I. will touch those with greater needs and lack of access. The result will mean well-designed products and experiences that tackle real needs, with the power to improve, not complicate, human lives.

Image

Credit Ike Edeani

LILA IBRAHIM Chief operating officer, DeepMind
Artificial intelligence offers new hope for addressing challenges that seem intractable today, from poverty to climate change to disease. As a tool, A.I. could help us build a future characterized by better health, limitless scientific discovery, shared prosperity and the fulfillment of human potential. At the same time there's a growing awareness that innovation can have unintended consequences and valid concern that not enough is being done to anticipate and address them.

Yet for A.I. optimists, this increasing attention to risks shouldn't be cause for discouragement or exasperation. Rather, it's an important catalyst for thinking about the kind of world we want to live in - a question technologists and broader society must answer together.

Throughout history few, if any, societal transformations have been preceded by so much scrutiny and speculation about all the ways they could go wrong. A sense of urgency about the risks of A.I., from unintended outcomes to unintentional bias, is appropriate. It's also helpful. Despite impressive breakthroughs, A.I. systems are still relatively nascent. Our ambition should be not only to realize their potential, but to do so safely.

Alongside vital public and political conversations, there's plenty of technical work to be done too. Already, some of the world's brightest technological minds are channeling their talent into developing A.I. in line with society's highest ethical values.

For example, as more people and institutions use A.I. systems in everyday life, interpretability - whether an A.I. system can explain how it reaches a decision - is critical. It's one of the major open challenges for the field, and one that's energizing researchers across the world.

A recent research collaboration between DeepMind and London's Moorfields Eye Hospital demonstrated a system that not only recommended the correct referral decision for over 50 eye diseases with 94 percent accuracy but also, crucially, presented a visual map that showed doctors how its conclusions were reached.

Meanwhile, researchers at Berkeley have been studying how humans can make sense of robot behavior, and in turn, develop ways for robots to signal their intentions. A team at OpenAI has developed approaches for interpretable communication among humans and computers. Others at DeepMind have been working on A.I. "theory of mind" - the ability to model what drives other systems' actions and behaviors, including beliefs and intentions.

These are just early examples of progress. Much more must be done, including deeper collaborations between scientists, ethicists, sociologists and others. Optimism should never give way to complacency. But the fact that more energy and funding is being invested into this kind of fundamental research is a positive sign. After all, these challenges are as complex, as important, and should be as prestigious as the many other impressive achievements in the A.I. field to date.

Awareness of risks can also be a call to action. It's precisely because A.I. technology has been the subject of so many hopes and fears, that we have an unprecedented chance to shape it for the common good.
NILS GILMAN Vice president for programs at the Berggruen Institute
We stand on the cusp of a revolution, the engineers tell us. New gene-editing techniques, especially in combination with artificial intelligence technologies, promise unprecedented new capacities to manipulate biological nature - including human nature itself. The potential could hardly be greater: whole categories of disease conquered, radically personalized medicine, and drastically extended mental and physical prowess.

However, at the Berggruen Institute we believe that strictly engineering conceptions of these new technologies are not enough to grasp the significance of these potential changes.

So profound is the potential impact of these technologies that they challenge the very definition of what it is to be human. Seen in this light, the development and deployment of these technologies represent a practical experiment in the philosophical, today conducted primarily by engineers and scientists. But we need a broader conversation.

For millenniums Western philosophy took for granted the absolute distinction between the living and the nonliving, between nature and artifice, between non-sentient and sentient beings. We presumed that we - we humans - were the only thinking things in a world of mere things, subjects in a world of objects. We believed that human nature, whatever it may be, was fundamentally stable.

But now the A.I. engineers are designing machines they say will think, sense, feel, cogitate, and reflect, and even have a sense of self. Bioengineers are contending that bacteria, plants, animals, and even humans can be radically remade and modified. This means that the traditional distinctions between man and machine, as between humans and nature - distinctions that have underpinned Western philosophy, religion, and even political institutions - no longer hold. In sum, A.I. and gene editing promise (or is it threaten?) to redefine what counts as human and what it means to be human, philosophically as well as poetically and politically.

The questions posed by these experiments are the most profound possible. Will we use these technologies to better ourselves or to divide or even destroy humanity? These technologies should allow us to live longer and healthier lives, but will we deploy them in ways that also allow us to live more harmoniously with each other? Will these technologies encourage the play of our better angels or exacerbate our all-too-human tendencies toward greed, jealousy, and social hierarchy? Who should be included in conversations about how these technologies will be developed? Who will have decision rights over how these technologies are distributed and deployed? Just a few people? Just a few countries?

To address these questions, the Berggruen Institute is building transnational networks of philosophers + technologists + policy-makers + artists who are thinking about how A.I. and gene-editing are transfiguring what it means to be human. We seek to develop tools for navigating the most fundamental questions: not just about what sort of world we can build, but what sort of world we should build -- and also avoid building. If A.I. and biotechnology deliver even half of what the visionaries believe is in store, then we can no longer defer the question of what sort of human beings we want to be, both as individuals, and as a collective.
STEPHANIE DINKINS Artist & associate professor of art, Stony Brook University; fellow, Data & Society Research Institute; Soros Equality Fellow; 2018 Resident Artist, Eyebeam
My journey into the world of artificial intelligence began when I befriended Bina48 - an advanced social robot that is black and female, like me. The videotaped results of our meetings form an ongoing project called "Conversations with Bina48." Our interactions raised many questions about the algorithmically negotiated world now being constructed. They also pushed my art practice into focused thought and advocacy around A.I. as it relates to black people - and other non-dominant cultures - in a world already governed by systems that often offer us both too little and overly focused attention.

Because A.I. is no single thing, it's difficult to speak to its overarching promise; but questions abound. What happens when an insular subset of society encodes governing systems intended for use by the majority of the planet? What happens when those writing the rules - in this case, we will call it code - might not know, care about, or deliberately consider the needs, desires, or traditions of people their work impacts? What happens if the codemaking decisions are disproportionately informed by biased data, systemic injustice, and misdeeds committed to preserving wealth "for the good of the people?"

I am reminded that the authors of the Declaration of Independence, a small group of white men said to be acting on behalf of the nation, did not extend rights and privileges to folks like me - mainly black people and women. Laws and code operate similarly to protect the rights of those who write them. I worry that A.I. development - which is reliant on the privileges of whiteness, men and money - cannot produce an A.I.-mediated world of trust and compassion that serves the global majority in an equitable, inclusive, and accountable manner. People of color, in particular, can't afford to consume A.I. as mere algorithmic systems. Those creating A.I. must realize that systems that work for the betterment of people who are not at the table are good. And systems that collaborate with and hire those missing from the table - are even better.

A.I. is already quietly reshaping systems of trust, industry, government, justice, medicine and, indeed, personhood. Ultimately, we must consider whether A.I. will magnify and perpetuate existing injustice, or will we enter a new era of computationally augmented humans working amicably beside self-driven A.I. partners? The answer, of course, depends on our willingness to dislodge the stubborn civil rights transgressions and prejudices that divide us. After all, A.I. - and its related technologies - carry the foibles of their makers.

A.I. presents the challenge of reckoning with our skewed histories, while working to counterbalance our biases, and genuinely recognizing ourselves in each other. This is an opportunity to expand - rather than further homogenize - what it means to be human through and alongside A.I. technologies. This implies changes in many systems: education, government, labor, and protest, to name a few. All are opportunities if we, the people, demand them and our leaders are brave enough to take them on.

Credit Mauro Bottaro/European Union

ANDRUS ANSIP European Commission vice president for the digital single market
In health care today, algorithms can beat almost all but the most qualified dermatologists in recognizing skin cancer. A recent study found that dermatologists could identify 86.6 percent of skin cancers, while a machine using artificial intelligence (A.I.) detected 95 percent.

In Denmark, when people call 112 - Europe's emergency number - an A.I.-driven computer analyzes the voice and background noise to check whether the caller has had a heart attack.

A.I. is one of the most promising technologies of our times.

It is an area where several European Union countries have decided to invest and research, to formulate a national strategy or include A.I. in a wider digital agenda. We encourage all our countries to do this, urgently, so that the E.U. develops and promotes A.I. in a coordinated way.

This should be a Pan-European project, not a series of national initiatives that may or may not overlap. It is the best way for Europe to avoid a splintered A.I. environment that hinders our collective progress, and to capitalize on our strong scientific and commercial position in this fast-evolving sector.

That can only happen if all E.U. countries work and pull together.

Today, many breakthroughs in A.I. come from European labs.

We have a good talent and industrial base - as a world region, Europe is home to the highest number of service robot manufacturers. We have world-class expertise in techniques requiring less data - 'small data' - to train algorithms.

The European Commission has long recognized the importance and potential of A.I. and robotics, along with the need for much higher investment and an appropriate environment that adequately addresses the many ethical, legal and social issues involved.

This can only be achieved by starting from common European values - such as diversity, nondiscrimination and the right to privacy - to develop A.I. in a responsible way. After all, people will not use a technology that they do not trust. We set out Europe's way forward on A.I. in a dedicated strategy earlier this year.

Our aim is to be ahead of technological development, to maximize the impact of investment in supercomputers and research and to encourage more A.I. use by the private and public sectors. We are consulting widely - also with non-E.U. countries - to design ethical guidelines for A.I. technologies.

The project to build a Digital Single Market based on common Pan-European rules creates the right environment and conditions for the development and takeup of A.I.in Europe - particularly concerning data, the lifeblood of A.I.

It frees up data flows, improves overall access to data and encourages more use of open data.

It aims to improve connectivity, protect privacy and strengthen cybersecurity.

A.I. has the potential to benefit society as a whole: for people going about their everyday lives, for business.

Europe is stepping up efforts to be at the forefront of the exciting possibilities that A.I. technologies offer.

Correction:

Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article misstated the name of Yves Béhar's company. It is fuseproject, not fuselabs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Five Artificial Intelligence Insiders in Their Own Words

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
YVES BÉHAR C.E.O. and founder, fuseproject While artificial intelligence touches so much of what we do today, the current thinking behind A.I. is too limited. To reach A.I.'s potential, we need to think beyond what it does for search, social media, security, and shopping - and beyond making things merely "smarter".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
北京邮电大学陈光：浅谈AI思维--2018可信云大会

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AI目前整个世界观是怎样的，目前的AI世界观是由三部分构成的，一部分是人工智能技术、一部分是机器学习技术、一部分是深度学习技术；刚才有朋友介绍了阿尔法狗，包括后面打游戏都是基于深度强化学习，深度强化学习实际上是深度学习的一个分支，深度学习实际上是用神经网络做模型的训练和模型的利用。现在大家一提到人工智能很多人都知道阿尔法狗，如果再深一点的知道深度学习，未必知道深度学习在人工智能大的体系里面是...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
性爱机器人即将发售，人工智能再次震撼人类生活 - 云+社区 - 腾讯云

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
性爱机器人即将发售，人工智能再次震撼人类生活。佳佳，是由中国科学技术大学仿照中国女性制造出来的仿人类机器人kokoro，是在东京国际机器人展上展示的仿人类机器人这一饱受争议的性爱机器人是由AbyssCreation进行研发，零售价为15,000美元（约合12,300英镑）。除了和机器发生性爱关系，人工智能的发展也能让机器甚至计算机程序陷入爱河。因为，随着技术的快速发展，人们可以给机器人植入人...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AI性爱机器人终将改变人性？

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
BBC3最新推出的纪录片《性爱机器人与我们》，专门就性爱机器人问题进行了探讨。

# data[].attributes.headline
BBC 纪录片《性爱机器人与我们》

# data[].attributes.subject
BBC 纪录片《性爱机器人与我们》

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AI让人失业事小，成人机器人破坏力或大得多

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AI让人失业事小，成人机器人破坏力或大得多,机器人 ai 人工智能 性爱机器人 编程