Many recommendations from Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google, seem to be coming true. Here is a report he has been involved in recently, the China Strategy Group final public report from Fall 2020
Comment: This report admits that the US cannot beat China one-on-one due to China's larger scale. The report authors state that having scale is critical to the ability to develop new technologies. Therefore, the report authors advocate the US pursue a strategy of alliances to cooperate with a large number of democratic countries and achieve high scale.
Additionally, the report focuses things such as:
(1) improving the US government's manpower and intelligence capabilities to identify important emerging technologies, since due to the unpredictable nature of science and innovation, which technologies are important is hard to identify, especially for government bureaucrats. The report suggests more private-public sector cooperation in this regard, since the private sector often knows better than government in this realm.
(2) Identifying core technologies to defend, or "grasping the large and letting go of the small", since no policy can possibly cover all technology. The criteria they identify for an important technology are (a) Is it a choke point technology or single point of failure for an entire field? e.g. Qualcomm for ZTE (b) Does it lead to a highly defensible competitive advantage? e.g. Is it the type of field where once you get a lead, it is very hard for someone else to catch up? How long does the lead last? A lot of this depends on sheer magnitude of resources. (c) Is the technology a security risk? For example, does it give you the ability to intercept communications or shut off a critical system in wartime? (d) Does the technology accelerate other technologies and the overall rate of technological advance across multiple domains? e.g. semiconductors.
The report says meeting any one of these four criteria means it's a high value technology.
(3) There is a section on how the US can dominate platforms. "Platforms" are defined as products (e.g. Windows OS) where the value is driven by the people using the platform (e.g., app developers), instead of the company that built the platform. They rely on network effects to gain scale. Some examples of valuable and strategic platforms identified in the report are USD settlement, search, social networking, mobile app stores, and messaging apps.
(4) The report also includes a section called "Brain Drain Wars" on human capital. This section calls on the US to address bottlenecks in immigration policy (increase high-skilled immigration), educational systems (direct 10% of STEM funding to teaching; industry-university cooperation; study successful students to see if any unusual factors made them successful) and research environments to foster innovation (reduce cost of living in tech hubs, raise pay for Ph.D's doing basic research, etc.).
Comment: This report admits that the US cannot beat China one-on-one due to China's larger scale. The report authors state that having scale is critical to the ability to develop new technologies. Therefore, the report authors advocate the US pursue a strategy of alliances to cooperate with a large number of democratic countries and achieve high scale.
Additionally, the report focuses things such as:
(1) improving the US government's manpower and intelligence capabilities to identify important emerging technologies, since due to the unpredictable nature of science and innovation, which technologies are important is hard to identify, especially for government bureaucrats. The report suggests more private-public sector cooperation in this regard, since the private sector often knows better than government in this realm.
(2) Identifying core technologies to defend, or "grasping the large and letting go of the small", since no policy can possibly cover all technology. The criteria they identify for an important technology are (a) Is it a choke point technology or single point of failure for an entire field? e.g. Qualcomm for ZTE (b) Does it lead to a highly defensible competitive advantage? e.g. Is it the type of field where once you get a lead, it is very hard for someone else to catch up? How long does the lead last? A lot of this depends on sheer magnitude of resources. (c) Is the technology a security risk? For example, does it give you the ability to intercept communications or shut off a critical system in wartime? (d) Does the technology accelerate other technologies and the overall rate of technological advance across multiple domains? e.g. semiconductors.
The report says meeting any one of these four criteria means it's a high value technology.
(3) There is a section on how the US can dominate platforms. "Platforms" are defined as products (e.g. Windows OS) where the value is driven by the people using the platform (e.g., app developers), instead of the company that built the platform. They rely on network effects to gain scale. Some examples of valuable and strategic platforms identified in the report are USD settlement, search, social networking, mobile app stores, and messaging apps.
(4) The report also includes a section called "Brain Drain Wars" on human capital. This section calls on the US to address bottlenecks in immigration policy (increase high-skilled immigration), educational systems (direct 10% of STEM funding to teaching; industry-university cooperation; study successful students to see if any unusual factors made them successful) and research environments to foster innovation (reduce cost of living in tech hubs, raise pay for Ph.D's doing basic research, etc.).
Last edited:
When is the US going to stop abusing the petrodollar hegemony
and when is Biden going to uncensor Alex Jones?
America is the biggest unfair trade violator and also the biggest censor and brainwasher...
This would be funny if it wasn't so evil, saying censorship is a trade issue is basically US telling China that hey we need you to make it easier for our CIA to do color revolution on you... and brainwash your population...
Last edited:
You probably know this but before Eric Schmidt was CEO of Google he was the Nokia CEO....
I thought AlphaBets "DeepMind" was going to solve AGI soon? Why they talking about "Brain Drain Wars"
AI not happening as fast as they would like?
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
It's still going to cost them more to do it themselves. They want to prevent supply chain disruptions. That can happen anywhere else meaning they have to produce them at home to prevent that which mean it'll cost them a lot. That the number one factor they like avoiding when it always comes down to cost.
The National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence Report (with Eric Schmidt as co-author) was released today. China plays a big part in this report and is mentioned over and over again. China is lurking in the background of this report 
Here are some highlights from the first 270 pages:
" We need to build entirely new talent pipelines from scratch. We should establish a new Digital Service Academy and civilian National Reserve to grow tech talent with the same seriousness of purpose that we grow military officers. The digital age demands a digital corps. Just as important, the United States needs to win the international talent competition by improving both STEM education and our system for admitting and retaining highly skilled immigrants."
"The federal investment and incentives needed to revitalize domestic microchip fabrication— perhaps $35 billion —should be an easy decision when the alternative is relying on another country to produce the engines that power the machines that will shape the future."
"...The government should: (1) double non-defense funding for AI R&D annually to reach $32 billion per year by 2026 [from $1.5 billion in 2021], establish a National Technology Foundation, and triple the number of National AI Research Institutes; (2) establish a National AI Research Infrastructure composed of cloud computing resources, test beds, large-scale open training data, and an open knowledge network that will broaden access to AI and support experimentation in new fields of science and engineering; and (3) strengthen commercial competitiveness by creating markets for AI and by forming a network of regional innovation clusters."
"...In essence, more and better data, fed by a large and participant consumer base, produce better algorithims, which produce better results, which in turn produces more users and more data, and better performance, until ultimately... fewer companies become entrenched as the dominant platforms." [says China cannot be allowed to gain this advantage]
"...funding students learning digital skills such as computer science, mathematics, information science, data science and statistics... university, graduate, and Ph.D scholarships"
"...increasing China's brain drain will create a dilemma for the CCP." [various measures to support skilled immigration, like free green cards for STEM graduates, more visas for entrepreneurs and the exceptionally talented, etc.]
"[due to the slow-down of Moore's law and physical limitations on semiconductor node size]...Over the longer term, the United States must also continue its portfolio approach to future microelectronics pathways by investing in new raw materials and entirely new hardware approaches, such as quantum and neuromorphic computing." [calls for an order of magnitude increase in research in these areas]
* Work with the Netherlands and Japan for presumptive denial of EUV and ArF photolithography equipment to China, to constraint China's capability to produce chips at any node at or below 16nm, which are deemed most useful for AI.
* States that China's Ph.D level top talent comes to the US to study and remains at 85% to 90% after graduating, which the US benefits from.
* Various proposals to cooperate and share technology with "like-minded allies", particularly European allies.
* Identifies important 'associated technologies': Robotics, Quantum (e.g., quantum chip fabrication), 5G, Biotech (e.g., biofabrication), advanced manufacturing (e.g., additive), microelectronics (e.g., semiconductors), and energy (e.g., batteries).
====
This report is over 700 pages long. It contains a wealth of interesting information on AI and tech strategy, far more than anyone on this forum could analyze.
Here are some highlights from the first 270 pages:
" We need to build entirely new talent pipelines from scratch. We should establish a new Digital Service Academy and civilian National Reserve to grow tech talent with the same seriousness of purpose that we grow military officers. The digital age demands a digital corps. Just as important, the United States needs to win the international talent competition by improving both STEM education and our system for admitting and retaining highly skilled immigrants."
"The federal investment and incentives needed to revitalize domestic microchip fabrication— perhaps $35 billion —should be an easy decision when the alternative is relying on another country to produce the engines that power the machines that will shape the future."
"...The government should: (1) double non-defense funding for AI R&D annually to reach $32 billion per year by 2026 [from $1.5 billion in 2021], establish a National Technology Foundation, and triple the number of National AI Research Institutes; (2) establish a National AI Research Infrastructure composed of cloud computing resources, test beds, large-scale open training data, and an open knowledge network that will broaden access to AI and support experimentation in new fields of science and engineering; and (3) strengthen commercial competitiveness by creating markets for AI and by forming a network of regional innovation clusters."
"...In essence, more and better data, fed by a large and participant consumer base, produce better algorithims, which produce better results, which in turn produces more users and more data, and better performance, until ultimately... fewer companies become entrenched as the dominant platforms." [says China cannot be allowed to gain this advantage]
"...funding students learning digital skills such as computer science, mathematics, information science, data science and statistics... university, graduate, and Ph.D scholarships"
"...increasing China's brain drain will create a dilemma for the CCP." [various measures to support skilled immigration, like free green cards for STEM graduates, more visas for entrepreneurs and the exceptionally talented, etc.]
"[due to the slow-down of Moore's law and physical limitations on semiconductor node size]...Over the longer term, the United States must also continue its portfolio approach to future microelectronics pathways by investing in new raw materials and entirely new hardware approaches, such as quantum and neuromorphic computing." [calls for an order of magnitude increase in research in these areas]
* Work with the Netherlands and Japan for presumptive denial of EUV and ArF photolithography equipment to China, to constraint China's capability to produce chips at any node at or below 16nm, which are deemed most useful for AI.
* States that China's Ph.D level top talent comes to the US to study and remains at 85% to 90% after graduating, which the US benefits from.
* Various proposals to cooperate and share technology with "like-minded allies", particularly European allies.
* Identifies important 'associated technologies': Robotics, Quantum (e.g., quantum chip fabrication), 5G, Biotech (e.g., biofabrication), advanced manufacturing (e.g., additive), microelectronics (e.g., semiconductors), and energy (e.g., batteries).
====
This report is over 700 pages long. It contains a wealth of interesting information on AI and tech strategy, far more than anyone on this forum could analyze.
Last edited:
AI is the future in so many ways and every domain will be enhanced by it just like every job needs a computer these days
US has dual approach to stopping Chinese AI, first is to outcompete China in R&D by brain drain wars and NSA hacking
Second is to stop China at the chip fab level so that China cannot make state of art AI chips and this will force AI and thus all other tech areas to lag behind...
The intent is in the long run this will leave China economy and GDP behind and solidify American Digital OPEC
No, you're mixing up Eric Schmidt with Stephen Elop.
Eric Schmidt was at Sun Microsystems (among other places) before he went to Google.
Stephen Elop was at Microsoft and then went to Nokia.
I misspoke, thinking of Novell but said Nokia
In any case this guy helped publish a 700 report on how to strangle China tech, and he wonders why China kicked Google out in 2008
Well, these are the same people at Google who supposedly wouldn't implement censorship of search results in China because it was totalitarian, or something, only to do it in the USA years later. Because of their censorship and user profiling I use DuckDuckGo.