US, China Take the Lead in Race For AI: UN (reuters.com) 78
China and the United States are ahead of the global competition to dominate artificial intelligence (AI), according to a study by the U.N. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) published on Thursday. From a report: The study found U.S. tech giant IBM had by far the biggest AI patent portfolio, with 8,920 patents, ahead of Microsoft with 5,930 and a group of mainly Japanese tech conglomerates. China accounted for 17 of the top 20 academic institutions involved in patenting AI and was particularly strong in the fast growing area of "deep learning" - a machine-learning technique that includes speech recognition systems.
"The U.S. and China obviously have stolen a lead. They're out in front in this area, in terms of numbers of applications, and in scientific publications," WIPO Director-General Francis Gurry told a news conference. U.S. President Donald Trump has accused China of stealing American innovations and technology and has slapped trade tariffs on $234 billion of Chinese goods to punish Beijing.
"The U.S. and China obviously have stolen a lead. They're out in front in this area, in terms of numbers of applications, and in scientific publications," WIPO Director-General Francis Gurry told a news conference. U.S. President Donald Trump has accused China of stealing American innovations and technology and has slapped trade tariffs on $234 billion of Chinese goods to punish Beijing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: And why, may I ask (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
All the experts needed to help set up the AI in a 3rd/4th world nation.
The NGO and charity work to support the AI. The education of how to work with and learn from the advanced AI.
The local staff working to help the AI get a nice set of UN SUV. For the big new AI project.
Engineers will be needed to set up the AI building. Local staff will have to decades of paid work with and around the AI.
The CIA and MI6 get to become AI "experts" and live in the 3rd/4th wo
Re: (Score:3)
The UN goal is to help facilitate peace. Scarcity causes conflict and wars. Because the Orphans, Homeless refugees are this way because of this.
To help manage Scarcity we need to know who may have more and less of something, where the UN can help facilitate helping those with less of something to trade with countries you may have more.
While Water, Food, and Raw Materials are often big on the list, Intellectual Property and Technology are important as well. Knowing that the United States and China are lead
UN money for war program (Score:1, Informative)
The same UN that facilitated illegal oil for money trades with Iraq under Saddam to make Kofi Annan's son wealthy. Which led directly to the reasons for the US invasion of Iraq.
Details [cfr.org]
That UN that supports corruption for their leadership's personal gain even if it causes war and mass causalities? The fact that they haven't done anything about that incident shows the UN isn't about keeping peace, they are about collecting money and power and not above doing so unethically.
Re: (Score:3)
I said it was its goal. Not necessarily that they are good at it, or always succeed.
Re: (Score:2)
The UN goal is to advance globalism.
Re: (Score:2)
United Nations
You don't say!
Re: (Score:3)
Because nationalism and regionalism lead to such a better world. I've got a few world wars (the Thirty Years War, the Napoleonic Wars, WWI and WWII) to show where that road lead. The whole point of economic entanglement is to make general war between the Great Powers unthinkable. A review of Churchill's post-war speech on a united Europe, not to mention his spearheading of the Anglo-American alliance (via the Atlantic Charter in 1941), should be studied by anyone wanting to understand the precise underpinni
Re: (Score:2)
is the U.N. spending our money figuring stuff like this out?
When we replace the entire U.N. with AI, it won't do stuff like that any more.
Re: (Score:2)
The AI will give advice on what loan to accept and what to export from the 3rd/4th world nation.
Wait before you draw conclusions (Score:4, Informative)
They hold the most patents. That's all. We're still a far cry from answering the all important question: What does "AI" mean anyway?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone really think that because IBM/Microsoft/... has patented something that that will stop anyone in _China_ from using/infringing it?
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone really think that because IBM/Microsoft/... has patented something that that will stop anyone in _China_ from using/infringing it?
It will get China to stock up their weapons [zdnet.com] to fight off American patent trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
That mostly works outside China. My point being that Chinese spies steal tech and then hand it over to chinese companies to use without any care in it being patented or not.
Re: (Score:2)
1. patent infringements are not the same as IP theft by definition;
2. patent infringements happen all the time in the US, check the East Texas court filings.
3. and patents are also enforced in China. in fact, it is known that foreign patent holders get favorable ruling over there.
4. at the same time, patent trollings also happen all the time in the US, also check the East Texas court filings.
5. The US also commit IP theft [theintercept.com] even nowaday, in addition to its historic dirt.
Re: (Score:2)
China also has laws guaranteeing human rights but Tien an Men and their well known "selective enforcement" of their laws _for_ those in power and _against_ dissidents and barbarians (non-Han) prove, those "laws" are of vanishingly small use.
East Texas was a zealous enforcer of _bad_ patents. Thankfully the USSC's ruling in Oil States Energy Services LLC vs Green's Energy Group and other recent decisions has nerfed most of those going forward.
China enforces those laws that those in power chose to enforce aga
Re: (Score:2)
The US also has gitmo that locks up without trial people the government does not like.
Whataboutism? Ho ho ho. This article is about AI race and it is used promptly to attack Chinese using IP issue. What about that?
And then what about hypocrisy? what about double standard?
Re: (Score:2)
Gitmo isn't imprisoning "people that the USG does not like". Gitmo is imprisoning extremist terrorists that were foreign combatants that believed in unrestrained terrorist acts against almost every government & people on earth. Even so, almost all of those imprisoned in Gitmo have been released back into their own government's care -- except for the 40 hardest core & those who the USG believes would be summarily executed.
TFA is about using patents as a means of comparing research which is meaningles
Re: (Score:2)
Well there is the public Idea of the Commander Data, or Hal 9000 type of AI. What modern AI is a computer used to solve complex problems, and be adaptable to come up with a unique solution.
What has changed over the past few decades, is that computing power has gotten to a level that affordable computers can now perform these calculations. Modern AI is still kinda stupid, but it is more rigorous.
Say given 50 years of crop data, with 50 years of weather data. Correlating, Simulating and Trending the data us
Re: (Score:1)
I think it means "Annual Inflation" of capabilities and promises.
Since our society seems to be based on the flow of money, and all our physical needs have been met a long time ago, we have to find new ways to get that money moving.
Fads, fashions, trends... aren't just for clothes!
Re: (Score:2)
and all our physical needs have been met a long time ago
I'm sure the ultrarich disagree; you still need to get more productive for them to grift some more money from you. So there's still a lot of productivity pressure.
Re: (Score:3)
We're still a far cry from answering the all important question: What does "AI" mean anyway?
That one is solved: "AI" = marketing hype term meaning "automation".
Re: (Score:2)
They hold the most patents. That's all. We're still a far cry from answering the all important question: What does "AI" mean anyway?
Very few people are wasting their time on that question. They are finding real world uses for modern AI techniques, and expanding on that toolbox of techniques, not wasting their time on pedantic argument like whether or not this will help lead to strong/general AI.
It is still one of many important questions in the field of AI, but it is irrelevant to nearly all of the many uses AI has for us right now.
Re: (Score:2)
How can you use something that you can't even define? Flumbo is good for you, Flumbo will make you big, strong and wow! Wtf?
Re: (Score:3)
How can you use something that you can't even define? Flumbo is good for you, Flumbo will make you big, strong and wow! Wtf?
There are plenty of definitions within the AI field. Machine learning, deep neural nets, decision trees, etc. A set of terminology is obviously necessary to do anything in the field.
But worrying about a general definition of AI is kind of like trying to define what consciousness truly is. Still a useful endeavor, but not that useful to the doctor trying to revive an unconscious patient.
Re: (Score:2)
How does a bird define flying ?
Re: (Score:2)
No AI winter just yet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Until then its AI everything and budgets get approved.
So.. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If it's a race, what is the finish line? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
AI used to mean AGI, until some people found they desperately wanted to give a false impression and invented "AGI", so they could continue to call things that have absolutely no insight or intelligence "AI".
The utterly dishonest claim that AI will eventually become AGI is just part of the scam being perpetrated here. There is no indication AGI will ever be possible and quite a few that it may not be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think you can implement insight in computers today, then you are utterly without insight. Also, that there is absolutely no indication that AGI is possible is just the current scientific state-of-the-art. You seem to confuse SF literature with Science.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AI used to mean AGI
I thought it used to mean the field that tries to build systems that perform such tasks that if they were done by a human, we'd take it as a sign of his intelligence, but that's just me (and Minsky).
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it used to mean the field that tries to build systems that perform such tasks that if they were done by a human, we'd take it as a sign of his intelligence, but that's just me (and Minsky).
Well, Minsky was perhaps the most clueless idiot or alternatively the most dishonest ass with regards to what he said about AI. I am really glad that has finally stopped. It was an utter disgrace to the profession and is one of the sources of completely unrealistic expectations in non-experts.
What we are learning is that some things can be faked or actually done without intelligence. Chess and Go are current examples. These machines are not intelligent, they just managed to scale to a level where somewhat r
Re: (Score:2)
What we are learning is that some things can be faked or actually done without intelligence. Chess and Go are current examples. These machines are not intelligent, they just managed to scale to a level where somewhat refined brute-force can beat a not-too-well prepared human expert player
So you're of the "if it can be done by a machine, it's not intelligence" crowd? I'm pretty sure that we'll eventually discover that there's no such thing as intelligence in the first place one day this way.
Re: (Score:2)
What we are learning is that some things can be faked or actually done without intelligence. Chess and Go are current examples. These machines are not intelligent, they just managed to scale to a level where somewhat refined brute-force can beat a not-too-well prepared human expert player
So you're of the "if it can be done by a machine, it's not intelligence" crowd? I'm pretty sure that we'll eventually discover that there's no such thing as intelligence in the first place one day this way.
Nope. Just what _these_ machines (or any other today) do is not intelligence. There is no element of insight. That may eventually change, but so far nobody has a clue how that could be achieved. If you think the element of insight is not needed for intelligence, then you are lacking in same.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the problem here is on your side. And it does not look like it can be fixed. Sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am saying it is _unsolved_ and there are pretty strong hints that we are nowhere close to even a rough solution. On the other hand, we do have a pretty strong theory of computing and that one gives us severe theoretical and practical limits as to what can be done with computing. Implementing consciousness is not possible with computers, and that is just a hard fact. All you could ever do is fake it. Of you think that is enough, then you have not understood what a p-zombie is and why it cannot be all that
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the problem here is on your side. And it does not look like it can be fixed. Sorry.
In other words:
How dare you deny my philosophical insights! I am gweihir, the all-powerful!
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. There are just some (few) people that get how utterly limited and primitive modern computer tech actually is, and many, many more that ascribe magical powers to it and think it can do anything. The second class has a problem with reality perception that, I think, cannot be fixed. It seems to apply here.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're of the "if it can be done by a machine, it's not intelligence" crowd?
That's exactly what he is, but he will dishonestly deny it.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no indication AGI will ever be possible and quite a few that it may not be.
Ah, once again gweihir makes that same claim (as he has done dozens of times before)
without providing the slightest shred of evidence to support it.
I guess he thinks that if he spreads enough bullshit around, people will believe him.
Re: (Score:2)
Military superiority is one of the goals.
Unsuitable metrics (Score:3)
Patent-count is not a measure of leadership. It is a measure of ego, greed and lack of ethics. In that, China may indeed have overtaken the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Patent-count is not a measure of leadership. It is a measure of ego, greed and lack of ethics. In that, China may indeed have overtaken the US.
It is basically a measure of investment. You aren't going to invest significant money in research without protecting that investment with patents. Not unless you just consider the investment to be a donation to the common good.
That said, it is a very imprecise measurement because not all investment leads to significant returns. Coca-Cola investment millions in creating "New Coke" decades ago, and all of that investment was lost. Any patent on the New-Coke formula is essentially worthless. But taken in the a
Re: (Score:2)
It's a very bad way to measure investment.
The companies pushing AI right now are mostly Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple ; their Chinese counter parts : Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent ; not to forget some Japanese companies as well like Preferred Networks or Sony. Universities of the same countries also play a part of it.
Those companies and universities do not care much about patents, at least much less than patent factories like IBM.
Note I'm not saying IBM is not investing on AI, just that the patents do not r
Re: (Score:2)
Patent-count is not a measure of leadership.
Well, IBM AI did defeat the world chess champion, Gary Kasparov. And it defeated all humans at Jeopardy, as well.
I dunno if the Chinese play Jeopardy, but maybe we could have a match of IBM AI vs. Chinese AI for the World Championship . . . ?
Does Watson speak Chinese . . . ?
On the other hand, I seem to remember some new a while back that IBM Watson AI Health wasn't doing so well.
Maybe patents != products . . . ?
Re: (Score:2)
That was decades ago. And who defeated humans at Go ? Google. Ask yourself why Google is not the #1 patent holder on AI. Because patents are a bad way of measuring investment. Some companies are patent factories, some don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody defeated humans at Go. There was a rigged stunt (the machine had many, many games the human played to prepare, the human had none and even after only seeing the machine play 3 times thought he could come up with a strategy to beat it), and there is a very good reason we did not see more games. The machine would probably not have stood any chance after a while.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a rigged stunt (the machine had many, many games the human played to prepare, the human had none and even after only seeing the machine play 3 times thought he could come up with a strategy to beat it), and there is a very good reason we did not see more games.
That is absolutely not what's happened with computer Go. I find it hilarious how you twist easily verifiable facts into lies to justify your denial.
Re: (Score:2)
Nowaday, patent portfolio is your war chest. If you don't have a lot of patents, you are at risk of being sued out of existence by US patent trolls. Given the US wants to fight this "intellectual property" war, i.e. patent trolling, it is only natural for Chinese companies to stock up their weapons [zdnet.com].
Chance of accusation (Score:2)
U.S. President Donald Trump has accused China of stealing American innovations and technology and has slapped trade tariffs on $234 billion of Chinese goods to punish Beijing.
So how is this story really related to the Chinese IP theft accusation? Perhaps, we should also be reminded of American's own dirty history [google.com] and current activities [theintercept.com]?
Actual ai (Score:2)
Actual AI would be such a colossal game changer, I'm less worried about those who've published the most. Rather, I'd be concerned about those working in secret that achieve a breakthrough.
Its task number one, logically, would be: how do we prevent anyone else succeeding at this?