Politicizing technical issues, the old trick of American hegemony (bell ringing)
Artificial intelligence is a new field of human development, not exclusive to major powers, and should not be reduced to a zero sum game arenaRecently, the National
Security Agency, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and Federal Bureau of Investigation jointly issued a statement accusing Chinese artificial intelligence companies of conducting "industrial scale" distillation of the United States to obtain cutting-edge model capabilities, and proposing relevant defense measures to American companies. The accusation made by the US is unfounded and without legal basis. Essentially, it politicizes and instrumentalizes the normal technical and commercial issues in the distillation industry, and applies double standards in practice, once again exposing its consistent logic of promoting technological hegemony, monopolizing computing power, and suppressing competition in the field of artificial intelligence. China firmly opposes this.
Distillation is a common practice in the field of artificial intelligence where various models learn from each other. Essentially, it is a neutral technological means that is being used by global model companies, including American companies. By using high-performance "teacher models" to guide lighter "student models", distillation technology can improve model training efficiency, achieve more efficient utilization of human knowledge, and have positive implications for the development of artificial intelligence industries, unlocking technological potential, bridging development gaps, and benefiting developing countries and the general public more widely.
China encourages open source, collaboration, and sharing, and opens up open source models to global enterprises, including American companies, to facilitate the development of related models. US companies have also disclosed in their model development reports that they have distilled a large number of Chinese models. According to the logic of the United States, the use of distillation by American companies is a "common industry practice", while the use by Chinese companies is an "aggressive behavior", which is a blatant double standard.
The US has elevated industry practices to a national security issue, using the pretext of cracking down on distillation as a means of monopolizing the industry. For a long time, individual artificial intelligence companies in the United States have abused their competitive advantage by setting broad geographical restrictions and other hegemonic clauses in user agreements, attempting to exclude competitors from countries such as China from the global technology ecosystem and monopolize the dividends of artificial intelligence development. The recent announcement by the US security department directly linking individual companies and capital interests with national security and using state power institutions to interfere in normal commercial activities is undoubtedly an endorsement of these overbearing clauses. For a period of time, the US executive and legislative branches have frequently issued threats of sanctions and suppression against Chinese companies, with restrictive measures gradually extending from chip control and computing power blockade to areas such as model access. The United States is willing to use national power to maintain its technological hegemony and computing power monopoly, rooted in its deep anxiety about its own technological hegemony. It still adheres to the hegemonic logic of "only the United States can win, not humanity can win".
However, blocking and containment can never stop the pace of technological progress. The development of artificial intelligence in China is the result of high-level technological self-reliance and self-improvement, and also benefits from China's consistent adherence to the concepts of consultation, co construction, sharing, and open cooperation. In recent years, Chinese artificial intelligence companies have made solid progress in areas such as basic algorithms, computing power layout, and scenario applications. Relying on a complete industrial system and rich application scenarios, they have continuously lowered the development and application barriers of artificial intelligence technology, breaking down the high price barriers built up by a few American companies relying on capital and computing power. Dennis Simon, a senior researcher at the Quincy Institute for Governance Studies in the United States, has stated that the United States should not view openness and security as zero sum games, and attempting to maintain its lead by building a high wall in the field of technology will ultimately backfire.
Artificial intelligence is a new field of human development, not exclusive to major powers, and should not be reduced to a zero sum game arena. Currently, the global big model industry is in a critical period of technological iteration, risk escalation, and growth and development. As major artificial intelligence powers, China and the United States should approach the challenges and risks faced in this field with a proactive and responsible attitude. The two heads of state have agreed to engage in intergovernmental dialogue on artificial intelligence. China is willing to engage in constructive and professional discussions with the United States through dialogue, based on the principles of equality, mutual benefit, and win-win cooperation, to jointly promote the open, inclusive, and beneficial development of artificial intelligence.
We hope that the US and China can move towards each other, control risks through dialogue and communication, jointly create an open, equal, fair, and non discriminatory environment for the development of artificial intelligence, and promote the benefits of artificial intelligence technology for all mankind. But if the US takes actions to suppress Chinese artificial intelligence companies under the pretext of cracking down on distillation, which damages China's legitimate rights and interests, China will take resolute measures to counteract it.