This is genuinely extraordinary: the latest ASPI Critical Technology Tracker is out and China is now in the lead for an incredible 57 out of the 64 key technologies of the future, i.e. 90% of the technologies.
The US leads the other 7.
A small 🧵 of what's in the report
First of all, what's ASPI (Australian Strategic Policy Institute)?
It's a quasi-governmental Australian defense think-tank that's largely funded by the Australian and US military-industrial complex.
In other words, they're very much NOT pro-China, quite the contrary...
And what's the Critical Technology Tracker?
ASPI basically identified the 64 critical technologies of the future (AI, biotechnology, EV batteries, etc.) and built a dataset to understand which countries and institutions produce the most innovative and high-impact research.
The key findings in the latest August 2024 edition are sobering:
- China leads in 57 out of 64 technologies, up from just 3 twenty years ago
- The US lost its research advantage: it was leading in 60 technologies 20 years ago, down to just 7 today
Furthermore in a number of fields, China "has built up potential monopoly positions in scientific expertise and top performing institutions", with "extremely high concentrations of research expertise" and "between 3 and 5 times the research output of the US".
Remember this 👇? That was 2014, explaining how China was "a land of rule-bound rote learners" who can't be creative.
We're 10 years after and China dominates the US in innovation in 90% of technologies, just to illustrate how fast things are moving (and how wrong Harvard was😅)
Looking at the ASPI report in more details, some things stand out.
US research is "increasingly concentrated in US technology giants" (Google, Microsoft, etc.) whereas "Chinese companies play a relatively small role" in the country' research.
Draw your own conclusion 😉
The one research institution that really stands out is the Chinese Academy of Sciences which on its own leads 31 of the 64 technologies.
It's the rough equivalent of France's CNRS or Germany's Max Planck Society. The US doesn't have such a centralized state research institution.
It's fascinating to see that China now leads the US in research for advanced semiconductor chips, given how fierce the competition is in this field.
As is often the case, this lead in research will likely translate into technological gains, and maybe ultimately market dominance.
Now let's take a look at the technology where China is most dominant, based on:
- What % of the top 10 research institution are in the country (e.g. 9 out of 10 below)
- The ratio of % of high-impact publication over 2nd-ranked country (3.6 = 41% divided by 11.4% below)
In the field of "Advanced information and communication technologies", China leads in all technologies but is most dominant in "Advanced optical communication" and "Undersea wireless communication", with 9 out of 10 dominant research institutions for both technologies.
In the field of "Advanced materials and manufacturing", China's dominance is absolutely overwhelming, with a high or medium monopolistic position in 12 out of 13 technologies.
No real surprise for the sole manufacturing superpower in the world...
In AI, China is slightly less dominant but still leads in 5 out of 6 technologies.
Only in Natural language processing does the US lead (thank you ChatGPT!)
It's in "biotech, gene technologies and vaccines" that China is weakest and the US strongest, with China leading in 4 technologies out of 7 and the US still in the lead in 3 technologies.
Probably the most surprising finding here given the crazy amounts of money the US spends in defense: China dominates the US in defense and "AUKUS-relevant" technologies, including a monopolistic position in 6 out of 10 technologies
Really makes you wonder where the money goes...
Next, this should come at no surprise to anyone given China's dominant position in EVs and green industry: it leads all technologies under "Energy and environment" with high to medium monopolistic position in 6 out of 8 technologies.
It's in quantum technologies, specifically in quantum computing, that the US has its only somewhat monopolistic position out of all 64 technologies, with 7 out of of the 10 top research institutions.
For the other 3 quantum technologies, China is in the lead.
Lastly, "Sensing, timing and navigation" with again a very strong Chinese dominance. The US only leads in atomic clocks.
To conclude, we're obviously witnessing an immense seismic shift, at a pace that truly boggles the mind given the overwhelming consensus in the West a mere 10 years ago that China "couldn't innovate".
And maybe that's the key lesson here: our biases and arrogance seem to have not only hindered our understanding of others but also impeded our own progress.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Quite an incredible move in French politics today that might reveal that we're in fact witnessing nothing less than a coup by Macron.
Let me explain 🧵
You'll remember that on the 7th of July France held elections that Macron lost badly, and which the left's "New Popular Front" won.
We're now 48 days afterwards and Macron and his government are still running the country, they've basically ignored the election results which is unprecedented in the history of the French 5th republic.
A synagogue was set on fire yesterday in France and that's an image of the suspect 👇
He's either the world's most idiotic Palestinian supporter or it's someone who really wanted to impress upon people that it was done by a Palestinian supporter... Only thing missing is a "I love Hamas" t-shirt for a perfect setup 😅
Anyhow French media don't even ask themselves the question, they're all shouting "look it was a Palestinian supporter"...
French Twitter doesn't buy it, at all. So many memes already 😅
Important precision: the synagogue itself was not set on fire. 2 cars parked in front of the synagogue (including one containing a gas canister) were set on fire.
Macron already called it a "terrorist attack" and an "antisemitic" act, before even apprehending the suspect and knowing about motives...lemonde.fr/societe/articl…
Something quite extraordinary is happening in Australia.
Over the past few weeks, many key authoritative figures - former PMs, top strategists, etc. - came out against AUKUS and US imperialism, in favor of Australian independence.
A small 🧵 listing the various key statements
First of, Paul Keating, former Prime Minister, describing AUKUS as the “worst deal in all history” and saying it will turn Australia into the 51st state of the US.
Malcolm Turnbull, another former PM, writing in The Guardian that it jeopardizes Australia's defense capability and sovereignty: "we now have to face the real prospect [...] of not having any Australian submarine capability at all."
That's incredible: Baidu last year set up a driverless taxi service in Wuhan and a few other places called "Carrot Run" (萝卜快跑), and the experiment is proving super popular with already 6 million rides completed with a fleet of just 1,000 cars.
The main reason is cost: without a driver and able to operate 24/7, it costs only 1/3rd of the price of a taxi or Uber. The cost paid by users is between RMB0.5 to RMB1.0 per km ($0.07 to $0.14) which is INSANELY cheap. With such a service, a drive between Boston and NYC (348 km) would set you back between $24 and $48, in your own private taxi!
Another added benefit is that they've set up the cars so that customers can sing karaoke or watch movies in the back (something you can't exactly do in a typical Uber). And safety-wise it's also proving much better than human drivers with no major accident in 100 million kilometers travelled.
So obviously a better experience from a consumer standpoint and it'll doubtlessly become the norm in a few years. Which of course raises questions with regards to jobs: millions if not tens of millions of people in China live off driving (taxis, delivery, etc.) so we're looking at quite a disruption if all those jobs get replaced by AI. And at the pace at which China moves, it's going to happen sooner rather than later.
The most important event in the world yesterday wasn't the disastrous presidential debate in the US, but it was the 70th anniversary of the 5 Principles of Peaceful Coexistence happening in Beijing.
I was lucky enough to be attending in person.
A 🧵
First of all, what are the 5 principles of peaceful coexistence, and why do they matter?
The principles were first proposed by China for the purpose of the 1954 Sino-Indian Agreement, also called the Panchsheel Agreement.
They are:
1) mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty, 2) mutual non aggression, 3) mutual non-interference in each other's internal affairs, 4) equality and co-operation for mutual benefit 5) peaceful co-existence
Whenever I want to be reminded of what a wise politician sounds like, I listen to George Yeo, the former Foreign Minister of Singapore (he was Singaporean cabinet minister during 21 years!).
A small 🧵 with video extracts from a talk he made at @AsiaSocietyNY recently.
Here he explains why it's "troubling" that the US keeps making the remark that they won't become number 2, "because it suggests that the US will do everything it can to prevent China from being number 1".
All the more troubling because:
- "China is prepared to accept the US for what it is"
- "It is completely unrealistic" for the US to think it can "change China". He sees US aspirations to change China as "hope built on an illusion [which] can only lead to one outcome: to tragedy".
- "China doesn't want to be number one politically, [...] it doesn't want to take on the burden of being the global hegemon, the global policeman". So "in a multipolar world, the US can still be Primus Inter Pares, first among equals, because of the English languages, because of standards, because the US itself is a metasystem."
Here Yeo relates a powerful anecdote where the Secretary to Pope John Paul II wrote in a speech: "despite our diversity, we are one".
The Pope asked to replace the word "despite" with "because". Yeo interpreted it as meaning: "we are one only because we respect that each of us is unique, that each culture is unique, that each country is unique. If we want as a condition of the relationship that the other person should be like us, that's not a relationship, that's a dictatorship."
Yeo makes the point that today liberalism "has become doctrinaire, has become ideological", and that we need to recover the original liberal idea "of accepting differences and finding commonalities in our differences".