China And The United States: Competing Visions Of AI Governance – OpEd
As Artificial Intelligence (AI) penetrates every ingredient of life, its inexorable momentum brings escalating perils. Differing attitudes of China and the United States toward the governance of AI as a revolutionary technology profoundly shape the policy roadmaps of the two AI superpowers.
Holding the largest shares of advanced AI technology and industrial innovation globally, the role of both great powers is crucial for setting norms around the responsible use of AI. The regulatory approaches adopted by China and the US carry global significance as they are outpacing each other to gain dominance in the field of AI.
China's Approach to AI Governance
The Chinese government has adopted an orchestrated technique to emerge as a global leader to rule the world in the field of AI by 2030, as embodied in its New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan. It has also announced strategic long-term plans like “Made in China 2025” to achieve self-sufficiency in AI technology. The projection of China’s AI market reaching $61 Billion by 2025, highlights the country’s significant progress in AI technology and industrial growth. However, it is essential to understand how China being an emerging powerhouse of AI innovation looks at AI Governance.
China’s approach towards AI Governance is state-driven where the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has exclusive control over companies to ensure social stability. Over the past few years, China has adopted a series of regulations specifically targeting AI companies. These measures are formulated to ensure that the development of AI is aligned with national policies and objectives. CCP has significant control of the digital economy and reinforces its political values.
China has formulated a series of policy documents and public pronouncements that are elaborating on the country’s governance regime on Artificial Intelligence. For instance, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) together with the other relevant governmental agencies promulgated regulations, such as the Regulation on Algorithmic Recommendation of Internet Information Services. These regulations stipulate that algorithmic recommendations should not lead minors towards addiction, treat users in non-discriminatory ways, and give users greater leverage in personalized recommendations. While China does not impose heavy fines for non-compliance with these regulations, the government certainly has the control to suspend operations of the AI systems violating the rules.
US Approach to AI Governance
The US emphasises market-driven policy which is based on innovation, expeditious development, and stationing of trailblazing AI technologies. It also allows for fostering international partnerships and collaborations, which makes the US a global leader in AI research and development, stimulating shared advancement and standards. The US market-driven model is based on industrial standards that can be adopted globally, shaping the AI governance structure of other countries. The US market-driven approach propagates economic growth through AI-powered innovations that can influence global economic trajectories.
While the US shares a global vision for AI governance, it desires to dominate the field of AI technology and innovation. In 2020, the US Congress passed the National AI Initiative Act (NAIIA), which focuses on ensuring “continued U.S. leadership in AI research and development.” The US is taking measures to control exports of semiconductor chips and adopting an economic isolationism policy to consolidate its hegemony in AI technologies and to restrict China’s AI development. For this purpose, the US passed its Science and CHIP Act in 2022, which allocates $53 billion to chip manufacturing companies and is aimed at bringing microchip manufacturing back to the US. Under the CHIP Act, chipmakers who receive funding from the Act are restricted from expanding their facilities in China and some other countries. This escalates technology rivalry, disturbs the AI supply chain, and has a pessimistic effect on global AI Cooperation, especially the regulations of AI technology.
The US approach towards regulation of AI is based on economic liberalism which enthuses the free market and minimal influence of government. This model allows private sectors to pioneer freely. Except when concerns arise about national security. In recent years, this approach has been criticised because a few big tech companies are dominating powers that neglect the societal effect and principles.
Divergent Models: Global Ramifications
The divergence approach of China and America in AI governance has significant global ramifications. As these nations are disseminating technologies, divergence in models of AI governance allows nations to adopt these competing prototypes, opening a new battleground for competition. Tech conglomerates of the US inclination for open markets and innovations got significant importance at the international level. US AI technologies are ubiquitously adopted setting a yardstick for international standards. Nonetheless, China’s Expeditious advancements and rivalrous pricing render it is AI solution admired by developing nations.
China aims to become a global leader in the field of AI with its remarkable innovations. China’s AI strategy includes ambiguous applications that are based on extensive surveillance and social control systems. The AI Governance Model adopted by the US and its primary consideration is global leadership in the innovation of AI technologies. Caught in the crossfire of this contestation, AI technology is vulnerable to becoming a source of global conflict. However, as both powers strive to achieve self-sufficiency and deny critical technology to the other, the chances of formation of ‘likeminded’ coalitions and their confrontations become more likely. This will have negative consequences for the global supply chain of AI technology.
Conclusion
China and the US have different approaches regarding their AI models. The US prioritises a collaborative framework that advocates transparency and individual rights. In contrast, China's AI Governance Model focuses on technological advancement economic growth, and societal control. The global landscape will be shaped as these two superpowers are continuously enhancing their AI Capabilities. The intensifying geopolitical competition and the nature of AI technology constitute a major threat to global peace, and collaboration on regulating AI technology is essential.
Despite differing approaches to AI governance, advanced AI powers share an interest in ensuring the responsible use of AI technology. Countries around the world will need to navigate to benefit from emerging technology to follow ethical rules and protect human rights. Contrarily, the outcome of this antagonism will influence the future of global AI development and its ramifications on society.