The AI Road to Serfdom?


February 23, 2019

The AI Road to Serfdom?

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/automation-may-not-boost-worker-income-by-robert-skidelsky-2019-02

man robot

Estimates of job losses in the near future due to automation range from 9% to 47%, and jobs themselves are becoming ever more precarious. Should we trust the conventional economic narrative according to which machines inevitably raise workers’ living standards?

Estimates of job losses in the near future due to automation range from 9% to 47%, and jobs themselves are becoming ever more precarious. Yet automation also promises relief from most forms of enforced work, bringing closer to reality Aristotle’s extraordinary prediction that all needed work would one day be carried out by “mechanical slaves,” leaving humans free to live the “good life.” So the age-old question arises again: are machines a threat to humans or a means of emancipating them?

In principle, there need be no contradiction. Automating part of human labor should enable people to work less for more pay, as has been happening since the Industrial Revolution. Hours of work have fallen and real incomes have risen, even as the world’s population increased sevenfold, thanks to the increased productivity of machine-enhanced labor. In rich countries, productivity – output per hour worked – is 25 times higher than it was in 1831. The world has become steadily wealthier with fewer man-hours of work needed to produce that wealth.

Why should this benign process not continue? Where is the serpent in the garden? Most economists would say it is imaginary. People, like novice chess players, see only the first move, not the consequences of it. The first move is that workers in a particular sector are replaced by machines, like the Luddite weavers who lost their jobs to power looms in the nineteenth century. In David Ricardo’s chilling phrase, they become “redundant”.

.But what happens next? The price of clothes falls, because more can be produced at the same cost. So people can buy more clothes, and a greater variety of clothes, as well as other items they could not have afforded before. Jobs are created to meet the shift in demand, replacing the original jobs lost, and if productivity growth continues, hours of work can fall as well.

Notice that, in this rosy scenario, no trade unions, minimum wages, job protections, or schemes of redistribution are needed to raise workers’ real (inflation-adjusted) income. Rising wages are an automatic effect of the fall in the cost of goods. Provided there is no downward pressure on money wages from increased competition for work, the automatic effect of technological innovation is to raise the standard of living.

This is the famous argument of Friedrich Hayek against any attempt by governments or central banks to stabilize the price level. In any technologically progressive economy, prices should fall except in a few niche markets. Businessmen don’t need low inflation to expand production. They need only the prospect of more sales. “Dearness” of goods is a sign of technological stagnation.

But our chess novice raises two important questions: “If automation is not confined to a single industry, but spreads to others, won’t more and more jobs become redundant? And won’t the increased competition for the remaining jobs force down pay, offsetting and even reversing the gains from cheapness?”

Human beings, the economist replies, will not be replaced, but complemented. Automated systems, whether or not in robot form, will enhance, not destroy, the value of human work, just as a human plus a good computer can still beat the best computer at chess. Of course, humans will have to be “up-skilled.” This will take time, and it will need to be continuous. But once up-skilling is in train, there is no reason to expect any net loss of jobs. And because the value of the jobs will have been enhanced, real incomes will continue to rise. Rather than fearing the machines, humans should relax and enjoy the ride to a glorious future.

Besides, the economist will add, machines cannot replace many jobs requiring person-to-person contact, physical dexterity, or non-routine decision-making, at least not any time soon. So there will always be a place for humans in any future pattern of work.

Ignore for a moment, the horrendous costs involved in this wholesale re-direction of human work. The question is which jobs are most at risk in which sectors. According to MIT economist David Autor, automation will substitute for more routinized occupations and complement high-skill, non-routine jobs. Whereas the effects on low-skill jobs will remain relatively unaffected, medium-skill jobs will gradually disappear, while demand for high-skill jobs will rise. “Lovely jobs” at the top and “lousy jobs” at the bottom, as LSE economists Maarten Goos and Alan Manning described it. The frontier of technology stops at what is irreducibly human.

But a future patterned along the lines suggested by Autor has a disturbingly dystopian implication. It is easy to see why lovely human jobs will remain and become even more prized. Exceptional talent will always command a premium. But is it true that lousy jobs will be confined to those with minimal skills? How long will it take those headed for redundancy to up-skill sufficiently to complement the ever-improving machines? And, pending their up-skilling, won’t they swell the competition for lousy jobs? How many generations will have to be sacrificed to fulfil the promise of automation? Science fiction has raced ahead of economic analysis to imagine a future in which a tiny minority of rich rentiers enjoy the almost unlimited services of a minimally-paid majority.

The optimist says: leave it to the market to forge a new, superior equilibrium, as it always has. The pessimist says: without collective action to control the pace and type of innovation, a new serfdom beckons. But while the need for policy intervention to channel automation to human advantage is beyond question, the real serpent in the garden is philosophical and ethical blindness. “A society can be said to be decadent,” wrote the Czech philosopher Jan Patočka, “if it so functions as to encourage a decadent life, a life addicted to what is inhuman by its very nature.”

It is not human jobs that are at risk from the rise of the robots. It is humanity itself.

Image result for Robert Skidelsky,

Robert Skidelsky, Professor Emeritus of Political Economy at Warwick University and a fellow of the British Academy in history and economics, is a member of the British House of Lords. The author of a three-volume biography of John Maynard Keynes, he began his political career in the Labour party, became the Conservative Party’s spokesman for Treasury affairs in the House of Lords, and was eventually forced out of the Conservative Party for his opposition to NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999.

Rally shows need for a radical revamp of the curriculum


December 10,2018

Rally shows need for a radical revamp of the curriculum

by Dr.Azly Rahman@ www. malalaysiakini.com

Continue reading

Daniel Kahneman on The Machinery of the Mind


October 18, 2018

Daniel Kahneman Explains The Machinery of Thought

https://fs.blog/2014/07/daniel-kahneman-the-two-systems/

Daniel Kahneman

Israeli-American psychologist and Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman is the founding father of modern behavioral economics. His work has influenced how we see thinking, decisions, risk, and even happiness.

In Thinking, Fast and Slow, his “intellectual memoir,” he shows us in his own words some of his enormous body of work.

Part of that body includes a description of the “machinery of … thought,” which divides the brain into two agents, called System 1 and System 2, which “respectively produce fast and slow thinking.” For our purposes these can also be thought of as intuitive and deliberate thought.

The Two Systems

Psychologists have been intensely interested for several decades in the two modes of thinking evoked by the picture of the angry woman and by the multiplication problem, and have offered many labels for them. I adopt terms originally proposed by the psychologists Keith Stanovich and Richard West, and will refer to two systems in the mind, System 1 and System 2.

  • System 1 operates automatically and quickly, with little or no effort and no sense of voluntary control.
  • System 2 allocates attention to the effortful mental activities that demand it, including complex computations. The operations of System 2 are often associated with the subjective experience of agency, choice, and concentration.

If asked to pick which thinker we are, we pick system 2. However, as Kahneman points out:

The automatic operations of System 1 generate surprisingly complex patterns of ideas, but only the slower System 2 can construct thoughts in an orderly series of steps . I also describe circumstances in which System 2 takes over, overruling the freewheeling impulses and associations of System 1. You will be invited to think of the two systems as agents with their individual abilities, limitations, and functions.

System One

These vary by individual and are often “innate skills that we share with other animals.”

We are born prepared to perceive the world around us, recognize objects, orient attention, avoid losses, and fear spiders. Other mental activities become fast and automatic through prolonged practice. System 1 has learned associations between ideas (the capital of France?); it has also learned skills such as reading and understanding nuances of social situations. Some skills, such as finding strong chess moves, are acquired only by specialized experts. Others are widely shared. Detecting the similarity of a personality sketch to an occupational stereotype requires broad knowledge of the language and the culture, which most of us possess. The knowledge is stored in memory and accessed without intention and without effort.

System Two

This is when we do something that does not come naturally and requires some sort of continuous exertion.

In all these situations you must pay attention, and you will perform less well, or not at all, if you are not ready or if your attention is directed inappropriately.

Paying attention is not really the answer as that is mentally expensive and can make people “effectively blind, even to stimuli that normally attract attention.” This is the point of Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons in their book The Invisible Gorilla. Not only are we blind to what is plainly obvious when someone points it out but we fail to see that we are blind in the first place.

The Division of Labour

Systems 1 and 2 are both active whenever we are awake. System 1 runs automatically and System 2 is normally in a comfortable low-effort mode, in which only a fraction of its capacity is engaged. System 1 continuously generates suggestions for System 2: impressions, intuitions, intentions, and feelings. If endorsed by System 2, impressions and intuitions turn into beliefs, and impulses turn into voluntary actions. When all goes smoothly, which is most of the time, System 2 adopts the suggestions of System 1 with little or no modification. You generally believe your impressions and act on your desires, and that is fine— usually.

When System 1 runs into difficulty, it calls on System 2 to support more detailed and specific processing that may solve the problem of the moment. System 2 is mobilized when a question arises for which System 1 does not offer an answer, as probably happened to you when you encountered the multiplication problem 17 × 24. You can also feel a surge of conscious attention whenever you are surprised. System 2 is activated when an event is detected that violates the model of the world that System 1 maintains. In that world, lamps do not jump, cats do not bark, and gorillas do not cross basketball courts. The gorilla experiment demonstrates that some attention is needed for the surprising stimulus to be detected. Surprise then activates and orients your attention: you will stare, and you will search your memory for a story that makes sense of the surprising event. System 2 is also credited with the continuous monitoring of your own behavior—the control that keeps you polite when you are angry, and alert when you are driving at night. System 2 is mobilized to increased effort when it detects an error about to be made. Remember a time when you almost blurted out an offensive remark and note how hard you worked to restore control. In summary, most of what you (your System 2) think and do originates in your System 1, but System 2 takes over when things get difficult, and it normally has the last word.

The division of labor between System 1 and System 2 is highly efficient: it minimizes effort and optimizes performance. The arrangement works well most of the time because System 1 is generally very good at what it does: its models of familiar situations are accurate, its short-term predictions are usually accurate as well, and its initial reactions to challenges are swift and generally appropriate. System 1 has biases, however, systematic errors that it is prone to make in specified circumstances. As we shall see, it sometimes answers easier questions than the one it was asked, and it has little understanding of logic and statistics. One further limitation of System 1 is that it cannot be turned off.

[…]

Conflict between an automatic reaction and an intention to control it is common in our lives. We are all familiar with the experience of trying not to stare at the oddly dressed couple at the neighboring table in a restaurant. We also know what it is like to force our attention on a boring book, when we constantly find ourselves returning to the point at which the reading lost its meaning. Where winters are hard, many drivers have memories of their car skidding out of control on the ice and of the struggle to follow well-rehearsed instructions that negate what they would naturally do: “Steer into the skid, and whatever you do, do not touch the brakes!” And every human being has had the experience of not telling someone to go to hell. One of the tasks of System 2 is to overcome the impulses of System 1. In other words, System 2 is in charge of self-control.

[…]

The question that is most often asked about cognitive illusions is whether they can be overcome. The message of these examples is not encouraging. Because System 1 operates automatically and cannot be turned off at will, errors of intuitive thought are often difficult to prevent. Biases cannot always be avoided, because System 2 may have no clue to the error. Even when cues to likely errors are available, errors can be prevented only by the enhanced monitoring and effortful activity of System 2. As a way to live your life, however, continuous vigilance is not necessarily good, and it is certainly impractical. Constantly questioning our own thinking would be impossibly tedious, and System 2 is much too slow and inefficient to serve as a substitute for System 1 in making routine decisions.

The best we can do is a compromise: learn to recognize situations in which mistakes are likely and try harder to avoid significant mistakes when the stakes are high. The premise of this book is that it is easier to recognize other people’s mistakes than our own.

Image result for daniel kahneman

Still Curious? Thinking, Fast and Slow is a tour-de-force when it comes to thinking.

 

Trishakti — the Real Malaysian Manifesto we need


October 14, 2018

Trishakti — the Real Malaysian Manifesto we need

Opinion  | Dr.  Azly Rahman

Published:  |  Modified:

COMMENT | The “manifesto” shoved down the eyes, ears , and brain of the voters – one that promised good things in life: no tolls, greater educational future, more equality for everything that can be equalised, less cronyism, massive arrests of white collar-songkok wearing thieves in political garments, and so on. These promises pushed the old regime of the Barisan Nasional to the corner to become losers in the 14 th general elections. This is not the sum total of a manifesto. It should not have been called a manifesto.

These are mere promises made to lure voters. To amass votes. Now they are confessing that these promises were not meant to be kept. They are meant to get the votes, get into power, maintain power, consolidate power, and leave the voters shortchanged. That’s the politics. And there are apologists to that game.

But what is a manifesto if the one that was presented by the Pakatan Harapan coalition is merely a set of to-do-list of things to implement; some to throw away and some to seduce voters into voting?

What must a manifesto do for a multicultural polity such as Malaysia, yearning to become a truly multicultural Malaysia? What language of change must it be written in, what narrative employed, what tone of discourse weaved in to make it as memorable and alive as The Communist Manifesto written by Marx and Engels, or the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America drafted by Thomas Jefferson, or even the Tennis Court Oath of the French Revolution worked on by the Paris Commune? Or even as fanciful as the Transhumanist or Cyborg-Humanoid Manifesto of today’s geeks?

Come the 15th general election, who’s going to lead the cybernetic revolution of the Third Force, Third Wave, guided by the Third Eye? The Messiah we need to get us out of the Matrix — from Najibism to neo-Mahathirism? How do we craft a shift in social-political-economic-cognitive paradigm?

Image result for the new malaysia

Herein lies the need to redo the manifesto or for another coalition for a new government to come up with one in preparation for the next general election, since the current regime that is sloganising a “New Malaysia” seems to be slipping into the ethos, ethics, anatomy, and psychology of the Old Malaysia, with the modus operandi of the new nation building mirroring the old ways of doing things.

A Third Force may emerge out of this possibly short-lived regime that seemed not quite interested in honouring the promises. Race politics is coming back, or too stubborn to leave the consciousness of the leaders of the new regime, although a majority of them are from parties that have multi-ethnic soldiers and major-generals. These parties may be intimidated by the hegemony and authority and insincerity of mono-racial parties that want to continue the agenda of one-race-one-religion superiority.

Hence, missing in the “manifesto” are abolishing race-based parties, levelling the racial playing field of education, combating racial and religious extremism, designing a truly social-democratic and emphatic-based economy model that is sustainable, and graced with sound principles of human rights and justice. Plus all those good things that ought to be in a manifesto which will move society rapidly and deterministically to another progressive phase of our evolution. But it seems we are made to step backwards. The new regime seems to be unsure what to do with its “manifesto” and how to honour the promises.

Elegance is missing in that thing called the manifesto. More than elegance, the bedrock of change is missing: a new national philosophy that promises to make the dream of founding fathers such as Tunku Abdul Rahman come true. The dream of a true Malaysia in which no Malaysians will be left behind. The dream of a nation “clean, efficient, trustworthy” mooted by Mahathir Mohamad who ruled for 22 years. The dream of a society not ruled by the arrogant, the privileged, the filthy rich, and those who think they are entitled to power and wealth passed down as easily as any of the world’s monarchy ruling over the enslaved majority.

The Trishakti Manifesto

Here are my thoughts on the coming wave of change — of “trishakti” as a dimension of change:

Come the 15th general election, who’s going to lead the cybernetic revolution of the Third Force, Third Wave, guided by the Third Eye? The Messiah we need to get us out of the Matrix — from Najibism to neo-Mahathirism? How do we craft a shift in social-political-economic-cognitive paradigm?

Third Force, Third Wave, Third Eye = Trishakhti — a force that should shape new politics away from the current ideological impasse. Bloggers and commentators in social media must come together and ignite this new intellectual revolution in educating the masses. Trishakti — Third Force, Third Wave, Third Eye … a force that will colour Malaysian politics blind. A force that will be a vigilante to the abusers of power. No one can stop it. The internet is anarchy — ride its wave.

The Kuhnian Revolution in science proposed that when there are too many questions that go unanswered as a consequence of the end of history for the prevailing worldview, the paradigm is meeting the near-collapse of its existence. This is said in Kuhn’s classic work The Structures of Scientific Revolution. (Thomas Kuhn is a Harvard historian of science.)

Malaysia is facing such a crisis – the collapse of the Barisan Nasional paradigm and the emergence of a newer one. There are too many questions unanswered and too many structures crumbling – judiciary, education, law enforcement, economics, culture, and so on that needed to be rebuilt but yet the old architectural plan is still used. The Third Wave is here – postmodernity. The First Wave – traditional societies – gave way to modernisation. Malaysian politics must respond to the coming of this wave.

In Malaysia, both waves have failed as a result of the failed policies of modernisation taken over by privatisation, Look East, and Malaysian Inc policies. Vision 2020 is a meaningless slogan created by the ideology of the past. Capitalism developed without ethics, fuelled by greed and facilitated by race-based politics. The world is experiencing the earthquake of a new global ideology surfacing.

The Third Wave is here. The March 2008 tsunami was a warning of its inevitability. The May 2018 transfer of power was testament of voter nausea and irritability.

But the Third Wave needs a Third Force and a Third Eye. The Third Force cannot be stopped and the Third Eye cannot be blinded. Trishakti is here. We need a leader — an intellectual leader. Current leaders do not understand this force. They are in it and are drowned by it, like fish in the water.

Let us push this idea to the masses and see it dance in the Malaysian cyberspace and gets translated into praxis. Trishakti resides in the cave — Plato’s cave, where philosophers, architects, culturalists, and futurists of change are congregating.

We have failed to scan the global environment and understand the waves of change affecting us now and in future. We need a real manifesto. No mere set of promises to be broken. Will a Third Force emerge?


Dr. AZLY RAHMAN is an educator, academic, international columnist, and author of seven books available here . He grew up in Johor Bahru, and holds a Columbia University doctorate in international education development and Master’s degrees in six areas: education, international affairs, peace studies communication, fiction and non-fiction writing. Twitter @azlyrahman. More writings here.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.

Cambodia embarks on the Fourth Industrial Revolution


September 13, 2018

Cambodia embarks on the Fourth Industrial Revolution

by Chheang Vannarith / Khmer Times
embarks-on-the-fourth-industrial-revolution/

In today’s world, more countries are looking for innovative strategies to deal with the rising uncertainties they are facing. Asean, not cushioned from the same concerns, is at a crossroads with the rapid evolution of the geopolitical and geo-economic spheres.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution is evolving at an unprecedented speed and its impact will be felt everywhere. This is the main theme at this year’s World Economic Forum held in Hanoi. In order to adapt to and make full use of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, Asean member countries are reforming their institutions and regulations at varying degrees.

Vietnam’s Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc, the host of this year’s forum, proposed a five-point strategy for ASEAN: fostering digital connectivity and data sharing; harmonising the business environment; building synergies among innovation incubators; managing talents; and creating an education network for life-long learning.

Indonesian President Joko Widodo stressed that “with creativity, with energy, and with collaboration and partnership, we, humanity, shall enjoy abundance and we shall produce infinite resources”. He warned about the misguided belief and misperception that the rise of some will lead to the decline of others, saying it is a dangerous notion.

Image result for Prime Hun Sen at WEF-ASEAN 2018 in Hanoi

Prime Minister Hun Sen set out a list of priority areas that Cambodia and ASEAN should focus on to enhance the application of technology for socioeconomic development and poverty reduction.

 

In his remarks at the forum, Prime Minister Hun Sen set out a list of priority areas that Cambodia and ASEAN should focus on to enhance the application of technology for socioeconomic development and poverty reduction.

Cambodia is concerned that digitalisation and automation might lead to job losses and increase inequality. The Cambodian government is already developing policies to seize opportunities and overcome the challenges that come with the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

First, the government is going to double its investment in upskilling the country’s human capital, especially in entrepreneurship and innovation.

Second, the Cambodian premier said a bigger investment is needed to develop digital platforms that can be used to share knowledge.

Third, he said more support mechanisms for the private sector are needed, especially for digital literacy, digital infrastructure development, and research and development.

“Cambodia can leapfrog if it can maximise its comparative advantages in terms of the demographic factor and its open economic structure. Hence, more investments are needed in education and knowledge governance,” Mr Hun Sen said.

He added that he was hoping to encourage innovative ways to narrow the brain gap.

“What ASEAN can do, Cambodia should be able to do as well and, if possible, better, because of the advantage of hindsight. This can be done by investing more in human resource training in Cambodia.”

The idea of a Fourth Industrial Revolution was first put forward by Klaus Schwab, a Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum. He argues in his book ‘Shaping the Fourth Industrial Revolution’ that governments, businesses, and individuals must make the right strategic decisions regarding the development and deployment of technologies.

“The scale, complexity and urgency of the challenges facing the world today call for leadership and action that are both responsive and responsible. With the right experimentation of the spirit of systems leadership by values-driven individuals across all sectors, we have the chance to shape a future where the most powerful technologies contribute to a more inclusive, fair and prosperous community”, he wrote.

In Hanoi, Prime Minister Hun Sen and several other leaders from Asean stressed the importance of human capital as the nations embark on the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

“Human capital, technological innovation and artificial intelligence need to be utilised side by side and with equal emphasis for Industry 4.0 to work,” he added.

US-China Technology Competition is about “Self Transcendence”


September 13, 2018

Image result for asia-pacific bulletin

Asia Pacific Bulletin, No. 439

Publisher: Washington, DC: East-West Center
Available From: September 12, 2018
Publication Date: September 12, 2018

US-China Technology Competition is about “Self Transcendence”

By Dr. Wenhong Chen

Eric Schmidt, then executive chairman of Alphabet, Google’s parent firm, commented on China’s AI ambition on November 1, 2017, in Washington DC: “By 2020 the Chinese will have caught up (to the United States). By 2025 they will be better than us. And by 2030 they will dominate the industries of AI.” Not to miss the boat, about one and a half months later, Google announced its first major China move after its search engine left the mainland in 2010 — that it was opening a Google AI China Center in Beijing, its first in Asia, led by the Chinese-American scientist Feifei Li.

Disruptive AI, Big Data, and Cloud Computing (ABC) innovations have generated opportunities and challenges for entrepreneurs and policymakers across the Asia Pacific. Given the centrality of ABC policy to national security, economic prosperity, and global influence, it is critically important to understand and assess ABC policy practices and their implications for the digital economy and the US-China bilateral relationship.

Chinese government policy has been credited as a major driver of China’s digital transformation. In the pursuit of the Chinese Dream — a narrative of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese people — China has been purposefully and skillfully developing ABC as a top national project since 2013.

First, a series of regulatory and legislative work including the passage and implementation of national, regional, and local policies, laws, plans, and programs (including Made in China 2015 which has become a contentious issue in the US-China trade talks).

Second, financial and institutional support gives rise to national big data pilot zones, ministerial industry demonstration bases, provincial and municipal industrial parks, and numerous national big data and AI research labs. Guizhou, one of poorest provinces for a long time, was selected as China’s first national big data zone and has demonstrated one of the highest annual GDP growth rates in the nation.

Third, the government has been exploring new mode of engagement with established and emerging tech giants such as Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent (BAT) and their younger peers which have been growing primarily outside of the state-owned sector. BAT have been chosen as national AI champions, and as part of the mixed-ownership reform, they were invited to invest in state-owned telecom behemoths for a greater integration of public and private sector digital resources in 2017. During the Two Sessions (China’s parliament sessions) in spring 2018, Chinese tech firms listed in overseas stock markets were invited to return to the Chinese stock markets.

Fourth, China has been promoting cyber-sovereignty through the control of cross-border data flow and the demand of data localization. Domestic and foreign companies are required to store data from China in China. Transnational corporations have been complying – via joint ventures with local, often state-owned partners – and complaining at the same time.

Related image

When asked by Senator Dan Sullivan at the Senate hearing on April 10, 2018 on whether Facebook and Mr. Zuckerberg were too powerful, Mr. Zuckerberg redirected: “And when I brought up the Chinese Internet companies, I think that that’s a real strategic and competitive threat that, in American technology policy we should be thinking about.”

Image result for henry kissinger

Henry Kissinger lamented that “Other countries have made AI a major national project. The United States has not yet, as a nation, systematically explored its full scope, studied its implications, or begun the process of ultimate learning.” America’s ABC policy has been less systematic than China’s top-down, whole-of-government, national-strategy approach.

The Trump Administration’s ABC approach, if any, seems to center on economic security as an integral part of national security. The Department of Defense spent $7.4 billion in 2017 on ABC, and set AI as the cornerstone of America’s military dominance. Similar to other areas, the Administration is shifting from the multilateral approach to one of bilateralism. As importantly, the Administration has been more confrontational, accusing China of forced technology transfer and intellectual property theft, and threatening tariffs and other punitive actions. In particular, the Administration has demanded that the Chinese government give up its Made in China 2025 plan which aims to develop China’s ABC industries as world leaders.

The US inter-agency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) has been tightening scrutiny on Chinese investment in US critical infrastructure and technology. A bipartisan bill further expands and strengthens CFIUS oversight.

In addition to these protectionist measures, the Administration recently released a factsheet showcasing its AI efforts and achievement in terms of military and unclassified R&D investment, government service, regulatory barrier removal, talent training, and international collaboration. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) organized an AI Summit with more than 30 American corporations and various federal agencies for better public and private AI coordination in May 2018. Although observers have different assessments on the Administration’s protectionist approach, it is time for the US to step up, starting with a long-term, more comprehensive tech policy framework, as well as greater investment in R&D.

While acknowledging the importance of ABC to national security and government efficiency, the federal government has been facing challenges such as 1) an aging IT infrastructure, 2) shortage of IT talent, and 3) tight budgets. Since President Trump took office, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the White House hub of innovation for the last four decades, has experienced substantial decline: the director position has not been filled and staff has dropped from 135 during the Obama administration to 45, and the majority have no science background

As media and pundits fixate on a binary US-China tech competition, both Washington and Beijing need to carefully gauge the benefits and costs of US containing or engaging China as a strategic competitor. ABC related policies and practices are at the frontline. Perhaps Wang Yi, the Chinese foreign minister, says it the best that the aim of US-China relations is about “self-transcendence rather than replacing each other.”

Dr. Wenhong Chen is  a visiting fellow at the East-West Center in Washington DC and associate professor of media and sociology at the University of Texas at Austin. She is serving as the chair of the Communication, Information Technologies, and Media Sociology Section of American Sociological Association (CITAMS). She can be contacted at Wenhong.Chen@Austin.UTexas.edu.