Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
AI China Businesses The Almighty Buck United States Technology

US Weighs Restricting Chinese Investment In Artificial Intelligence ( 64

An anonymous reader shares a Reuters report: The United States appears poised to heighten scrutiny of Chinese investment in Silicon Valley to better shield sensitive technologies seen as vital to U.S. national security, current and former U.S. officials tell Reuters. Of particular concern is China's interest in fields such as artificial intelligence and machine learning, which have increasingly attracted Chinese capital in recent years. The worry is that cutting-edge technologies developed in the United States could be used by China to bolster its military capabilities and perhaps even push it ahead in strategic industries. The U.S. government is now looking to strengthen the role of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the inter-agency committee that reviews foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies on national security grounds. An unreleased Pentagon report, viewed by Reuters, warns that China is skirting U.S. oversight and gaining access to sensitive technology through transactions that currently don't trigger CFIUS review.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Weighs Restricting Chinese Investment In Artificial Intelligence

Comments Filter:
  • 9 out of 10 times such "insider reports" are leaked as a tacit innuendo "lobby firms not paying enought"

  • How that policy works out with super computers and space crafts?

    • by Guspaz ( 556486 ) on Wednesday June 14, 2017 @12:23PM (#54618037)

      It's a shortsighted policy: instead of the Chinese investing money in US research, they'll invest money in Chinese research.

      The end result is they'll get the technology they want, and the US won't get the benefits of the research. That's how we ended up with China having manned spaceflight capabilities while the US doesn't, and how we ended up with China having the most powerful supercomputers.

    • The crypto export bans [] of the 1990s were also extremely damaging. The main effect, besides turning t-shirts into munitions, was that companies did much of their crypto development outside the USA.

      This proposed law would likely have the same effect. AI research would migrate out of America. Politics should be implemented as an LSTM RNN [] so we can remember failures and avoid repeating them.

      • AI is a joke anyway, nothing new for decades in that field other than more horsepower available for same old algorithms. nothing much of value lost

  • We wouldn't want them to steal our state of the art Ms. Pac Man playing AI []. Our Atari 2600 high scores are safe for a while longer thanks to our government!

  • by fubarrr ( 884157 ) on Wednesday June 14, 2017 @12:45PM (#54618299)

    Chinese strategy since mid-200x: seal new economic opportunities, let the enemy run out of possible moves.

    Rare earth metal mining, and all of new industries orbiting it - nuked mid 200x
    "Big solar" - went throught "slash and burn" acquisition
    Battery tech - again, all worthy companies got sold to Chinese before they had an opportunity to make a dent on Chinese battery monopoly
    "New nuclear" - in Chinese pocket since 2015
    The entire field of bioinformatics eaten by China before it even had a chance to emerge

    This list can go on for few pages

    • by mspohr ( 589790 )

      I agree.
      The US has fallen behind and is now a "has been" country like (formerly) Great Britain.
      China is the leader in innovation and technology.
      Now that Trump has taken us out of the renewable energy business, the Chinese takeover of that field is complete. They already produce 2/3 of the world's solar panels and half the windmills plus almost all of the new nuclear.
      We're toast.

      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Well, to be fair, the UK was already a "has been" before it joined the EU and got propped up. Apparently they now think they were on the right path back then and want to continue the downward way. The US is a bit newer in the club of "has beens", but this has been obvious for at least a decade or so as well.

        I don't think China is the leader though. They are pretty mediocre in most areas. That puts them vastly ahead of the US, but behind the EU. (And no, the EU is not being overrun by barbarian hordes at the

      • Now that Trump has taken us out of the renewable energy business

        If it needed subsidies to survive we were never in the business to begin with. If it isn't profitable it isn't a business per se.

        • by mspohr ( 589790 )

          The problem is that we are giving subsidies to fossil fuels. They need subsidies to survive and Trumps friends in the fossil fuel business are tapping him for subsidies.
          Renewables can compete on a level field. Solar and wind are cheaper (unsubsidized) than coal and gas.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      What you overlook is the little fact of _why_ they can do it. The problem is that the US economy of completely borked and, as a result, the Chinese have money to spend. A lot of it.

    • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      Japan used to try this where the gov't heavily subsidized new industries. It usually didn't pan out. For example, they spent billions perfecting high-def analog video. But digital came along and ended the analog video market.

      We hear about China's successes, but I'm sure there's a lot of failures that are suppressed. Socialized R&D has a mixed record.

  • by king neckbeard ( 1801738 ) on Wednesday June 14, 2017 @01:05PM (#54618521)
    I think it would be much more practical for he US to get rid of policies that undermine America's scientific capabilities, such as denial of basic scientific fact.
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      That would mean getting rid of a major part of the population as well. You cannot fix stupid.

    • Neil Tyson Degrasse said that the thing that started him the most during his career, the US went from being the world leader in particle physics (1980) to a has been contender. I was at Stony Brook at that time, so there was a lot of discussion about Isabelle (the bid on the next gen super collider competing against CERN), later known as Wasabelle, Now, Google and Apple will dominate the patents (on technology which is twice as old as the company) in their industry, but serve to starve the industry in leg
  • So I just wonder who stands to profit from restricting Chinese investments from coming to America? It makes no sense, if somebody wants to invest in you, you don't run away.

    Americans are happily *consuming* everything that is produced in China and they are consuming on *credit* that is handed to them by the Chinese. So apparently it is good enough for Americans to *borrow for consumption* but borrowing savings for investment is not OK.

    Who stands to benefit from this restriction financially? Well, governm

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      They never worked. They usually made things worse. But this is politics, whether something works is unimportant, it only matters whether something sounds good to the ignorant masses.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Let's just hope General Tso doesn't adopt both drone and AI technology. The buffet will never be the same. A vwery verwy intwesting devewupment.

If a thing's worth having, it's worth cheating for. -- W.C. Fields