Two years ago, ChatGPT was launched in a groundbreaking way, which led to the rise of global artificial intelligence concept stocks. At that time, some investors communicated with me and asked, is it possible for China's AI industry to surpass the United States? I think that any possibility exists in the long run, but the two issues of chips and regulation alone will be enough to hold back, and we must not be blindly optimistic in recent years.
There is no need to elaborate on the current situation of China's chips, and major AI innovations will immediately attract the attention of relevant departments, who will think about how to regulate, put them on the right track, strengthen governance, and prevent chaos... The truth is right, but in practice, the execution level is afraid of "chaos once released", which can easily evolve into over-regulation and regulation. Although it will not lead to "death by regulation", it will restrict the development of the technology industry.
Originally, laymen are managing insiders, and many officials are currently more concerned about stability. In the mentality of fearing responsibility and not daring to fulfill responsibilities, doing more mistakes, doing less mistakes, and not doing anything wrong, sometimes it is better to be too left than a little right, and it is better to be strict than loose. They will spend more time, energy and thoughts on content review rather than promoting development. In addition, the generally low administrative efficiency will put a "tight ring" on technology companies and miss market opportunities. Although in a protected and supported super-large market, with the wisdom of the Chinese people, vertical development will be inevitable, but since it started relatively late and was constrained, the consequences in horizontal comparison are self-evident.
Since then, China's AI and supervision have been developing, but to this day, there is still fierce debate in academia and the business community on whether AI should be "developed first" or "governed first". Some scholars argue that it is "not enough" to develop and govern at the same time. "We may have to plan ahead, think about what far-reaching negative impacts it may bring, think about the governance response strategy in advance, and then develop." But in the business community, it is generally agreed that "development is still the first priority", and more worried that "you haven't started to govern it, it will die."
To be fair, both sides have practical significance, but this is not irreconcilable. In my opinion, the key is to "encourage innovation, focus on development, set a bottom line, and be cautious in supervision." Wild growth is a manifestation of vitality, and the so-called "chaos" actually has more opportunities. When we look back at the golden age in history, people were full of complaints at that time. Only when we lost it, we will find how prosperous and active it was back then, and how many opportunities there were when the water was big and the fish was big.
We need to set a bottom line that is truly a "bottom", and we must be loose outside of the principles. Don't be afraid of problems, the sky will not fall. Whether it is artificial intelligence or other new things, when it reaches the mature and finalized period, various systems will be standardized, which also means that the growth rate and development space are not large.
Lao Tzu said in the
"Tao Te Ching" that "the net of heaven is vast, and it is sparse
but not lost", which means "setting the bottom line and prudent
supervision". The net is loose enough, but once the bottom line is stepped
on, you can't escape. Lao Tzu also said: "The government is dull, and the
people are honest; the government is strict, and the people are lacking."
In contrast to the strict and meticulous control, the sage's rule is generous
and clear, and he is wise and foolish. He seems confused, but he is actually
wise, thus bursting out the nuclear energy of innovation and riding on the
rocket of development.
两年前ChatGPT石破天惊式问世，拉升起全球人工智能概念股票的上涨，当时一些投资人与我交流，问道，中国AI产业有没可能超越美国？我认为，远景任何可能性都存在，但光是芯片和管制这两条就会拖够后腿，在近年内绝不能盲目乐观。
中国的芯片现状毋庸赘述，而AI重大创新出来，立马就会引起有关方面注意，会想着要怎么怎么监管，纳入正确轨道，加强治理，防止乱象……道理是没错，但在实践中，执行层面因害怕“一放就乱”，就极易演变成管过头，监管变管制，虽不致于“一管就死”，但会束缚科技产业的发展。
本是外行管内行，当前不少肉食者求稳的考量更大。在害怕担当、不敢履责，多做多错、少做少错、不做不错的心态下，有时宁左勿右，觉得严比松好。他们会把更多时间、精力、心思花在内容审查而不是推动发展上，加之行政效率普遍不高，会给科技企业戴上“紧箍”，贻误市场战机。虽然在一个受到保护和扶持的特大市场里，以中国人的聪明才智，纵向发展会是必然，但既然起步相对晚，又奔跑受束缚，在横向比较上后果不言而喻。
此后，中国AI和监管都在发展，但时至今日，学界、企业界在AI是“先发展”还是“先治理”上仍在激烈争议。有的学者主张，边发展边治理“都不够”，“我们可能要未雨绸缪，先想好它可能带来哪些深远的负面影响，把治理的应对策略提前想好，然后再去发展。”但在企业界则普遍认同“发展还是第一位的”，更多担心“你没治，它就死掉了。”
平心而论，双方立论都有现实意义，但这并非不可调和。在笔者看来，关键是要“鼓励创新、聚焦发展、设定底线、慎重监管”。野蛮生长，那是活力的体现，所谓的“乱”实际机会更多。当我们回头看历史上的黄金时代，当时人们也充满吐槽，只是在失去了它，才会发现当年是多么的繁荣活跃，水大鱼大机会多。
要设定一个真正是“底”的底线，原则之外都要宽松，出现点问题不要怕，天塌不下来。无论是人工智能，还是别的新事物，当到了成熟定型期，各项制度规范起来，同时也意味着增长速度和发展空间已经不大了。
老子在《道德经》中说“天网恢恢，疏而不失”，这就是“设定底线、慎重监管”，网够宽松，但一旦踩了底线就逃不了。老子还说：“其政闷闷,其民淳淳；其政察察,其民缺缺。”与管制的严苛和细密相反，圣人之治宽厚而清明，大智若愚，看似糊涂，实则高明，从而迸发创新的核能，乘上发展的火箭。
Comments
Post a Comment