China demographics thread.

[jli88]

In the grand scheme of things, your personal experience doesn't matter. The data tells us that most Chinese students in the US return to China. Some members of this forum already know that I attended a top 3 university (US News) for my undergraduate studies and I am currently at a top 10 university for my graduate studies. The best Chinese graduate students I met at these universities went back to China to become professors or researchers. Some of them stayed in the US to work for companies like Meta and Google, but most of the ones I met went back to China. I wouldn't extrapolate my personal experience to the rest of the Chinese students in the US, as I've only met a small percentage of them.

I agree that most recent breakthroughs in the field of computer science are not from China, but ResNet was literally invented in China. Are you really a researcher in this field? This is one of the most well-known papers in the field:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In other fields, especially the physical sciences, many breakthroughs do come from China. China's dominance in batteries and photovoltaics wasn't an accident. Feel free to take a look at journals such as ACS Nano, Advanced Functional Materials, Nano Letters, Applied Physics Letters, etc.

I agree that personal experiences can't be determinative, however they are still an anecdotal evidence that can be one data point to ponder. If your personal experience contradicts data, it is a way to explore why that happens. Your personal experience can be wrong. Maybe you had a confirmation or sampling bias. However, sometimes the data can also be misleading, collected wrong, have a misleading methodology etc.

I am not questioning that most (or many) Chinese students return.

I am questioning however the fact that the best and brightest return, expounded in greater depth in a later message.

Regarding Resnet Paper again, expounded in greater depth later.

 

[jli88]

Can you quantify that claim?

China has a net brain gain from published scientists.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I have had a look at the methodology of these numbers. What they do is that they count the shift in the authors affiliation for all Scopus listed authors. However, Scopus essentially tracks all of published research. So this metric tracks all authors who have published even one paper. This metric in my humble opinion has severe drawbacks, and can definitely not be used to track high quality research or scientists.

Side Note: I am asiandemographer. Lost access to my account, so had to create this.

 

[jli88]

IDK much about AI. But I do know how to type and occasionally move a mouse.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. Can you show me something that shows it isn't?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

was published by

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

- but Microsoft Research Asia in Beijing. This is shown by the lead author

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

being affiliated with Microsoft Research Asia in Beijing at the time,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Are these the best examples? In Example 1, neither the institution, researchers nor location were American. In Example 2, the institution was American, but the researchers and location was not. In Example 3, the initial idea was not made by an American or at a US institution.

In the grand scheme of things, your personal experience doesn't matter. The data tells us that most Chinese students in the US return to China. Some members of this forum already know that I attended a top 3 university (US News) for my undergraduate studies and I am currently at a top 10 university for my graduate studies. The best Chinese graduate students I met at these universities went back to China to become professors or researchers. Some of them stayed in the US to work for companies like Meta and Google, but most of the ones I met went back to China. I wouldn't extrapolate my personal experience to the rest of the Chinese students in the US, as I've only met a small percentage of them.

I agree that most recent breakthroughs in the field of computer science are not from China, but ResNet was literally invented in China. Are you really a researcher in this field? This is one of the most well-known papers in the field:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In other fields, especially the physical sciences, many breakthroughs do come from China. China's dominance in batteries and photovoltaics wasn't an accident. Feel free to take a look at journals such as ACS Nano, Advanced Functional Materials, Nano Letters, Applied Physics Letters, etc.

I should have used the word West rather than US. That's my bad. My defense being that almost all Canadian research/talent is directly available to US academia, military, industries, and companies. From next time, I will be more clear and precise. Sorry for that.

Sorry for the Resnet mix as well, I never knew it was work done in MS Research Asia (the paper explicitly mentions only MS Research). Though I see that the first author has relocated to US.

With regards to your point on "ACS Nano, Advanced Functional Materials, Nano Letters, Applied Physics Letters." Totally agreed, Chinese research is top notch, that shows in Nature Index for example (subject rankings). Not questioning that point.

However, my point was that the breakthrough research still happens in the West, and there is more breakthrough research from Chinese authors happening in West than through Chinese authors in China. To support that I have broken down all first authors published in one month of Nature. Now admittedly this has various issues: engineering is not represented, Nature is not the only source or publisher of breakthroughs, etc. I get it, however the counterevidence presented, like Scopus author migration doesn't measure quality (or even top-tier) research.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

I have had a look at the methodology of these numbers. What they do is that they count the shift in the authors affiliation for all Scopus listed authors. However, Scopus essentially tracks all of published research. So this metric tracks all authors who have published even one paper. This metric in my humble opinion has severe drawbacks, and can definitely not be used to track high quality research or scientists.

Side Note: I am asiandemographer. Lost access to my account, so had to create this.

There will always be far more demand for skilled implementors than leaders. Publishing something peer reviewed is somewhat of an achievement already.

Another thing:

It is plausible to gain normal talent while not gaining top talent.

It is much less plausible to lose normal talent and yet not lose top talent.

So if you say China is only gaining mediocre talent, ok, maybe. But to assert that the US can lose mediocre talent while gaining top talent is a much bigger jump.

 

[jli88]

100 million won, around 72k USD per child!

A good thing for China is that given Korea's and Japan's experience, it will have at least a playbook for what doesn't or does work.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[manqiangrexue]

However, my point was that the breakthrough research still happens in the West, and there is more breakthrough research from Chinese authors happening in West than through Chinese authors in China. To support that I have broken down all first authors published in one month of Nature. Now admittedly this has various issues: engineering is not represented, Nature is not the only source or publisher of breakthroughs, etc. I get it, however the counterevidence presented, like Scopus author migration doesn't measure quality (or even top-tier) research.

If your methods are so fatally flawed, which you admit, you cannot draw any conclusions on them at all. To assert that there are more breakthroughs from the Chinese in America than the Chinese in China is ridiculous because the speed of China's technological growth is much faster than America in total, all ethnicities combined. That's even broader than the scope of published authorship. That's the all-encompassing result that matters. Your personal definition of what constitutes a breakthrough and your critically flawed sampling biases mean nothing compared to the overarching theme of China beating the US at the tech war.

Once again, what is your point? How does this relate to China's demographics?

 

[jli88]

If your methods are so fatally flawed, which you admit, you cannot draw any conclusions on them at all. To assert that there are more breakthroughs from the Chinese in America than the Chinese in China is ridiculous because the speed of China's technological growth is much faster than America in total, all ethnicities combined. That's even broader than the scope of published authorship. That's the all-encompassing result that matters. Your personal definition of what constitutes a breakthrough and your critically flawed sampling biases mean nothing compared to the overarching theme of China beating the US at the tech war.

Once again, what is your point? How does this relate to China's demographics?

Please stop misrepresenting me. My claim is very specific: It is about science/engineering breakthroughs at the top 0.01% level, the kind which win Fields Medals, Nobels etc.

China can win the whole semiconductor tech race, including EUV, 2 nm chips etc. without needing to make a fundamental science breakthrough. Because it is applied science and engineering. Doesn't mean that it's not important, but just looking at a different segment.

I think this thing arose because of migration trends (which are directly relevant to demographics). Anyways yes, back to demographics, and we can discuss these again when the issue arises.

 

[manqiangrexue]

Please stop misrepresenting me. My claim is very specific: It is about science/engineering breakthroughs at the top 0.01% level, the kind which win Fields Medals, Nobels etc.

1. You just said that you focused on Nature, so engineering is not represented.
2. A)You cannot justify how you deem something to be mathematically 0.1%,
2. B)You cannot justify the arbitrary 0.1% threshold. What is the importance of 0.1%? Why is it not 1%? 0.01%?

China can win the whole semiconductor tech race, including EUV, 2 nm chips etc. without needing to make a fundamental science breakthrough. Because it is applied science and engineering. Doesn't mean that it's not important, but just looking at a different segment.

2. C) If China can win the tech war without even doing this "basic science breakthrough" as you call it, which I don't agree with, then what is the importance? If we win the lithography race by our own research, then what is there left for you to complain about? Publications in Western journals? Western-control science prizes? LOL

I think this thing arose because of migration trends (which are directly relevant to demographics). Anyways yes, back to demographics, and we can discuss these again when the issue arises.

Migration trends show a significant majority of Chinese talent returning to China (80%), which you then tried to say is unimportant because your imaginary 0.1% super geniuses stayed in the US, but you cannot back the claim up due to severely flawed analytical methods and self-admitted irrelevence of the entire exercise in the scope of the tech war which will define the power dynamic between the US and China.

 

[sanctionsevader]

Please stop misrepresenting me. My claim is very specific: It is about science/engineering breakthroughs at the top 0.01% level, the kind which win Fields Medals, Nobels etc.

China can win the whole semiconductor tech race, including EUV, 2 nm chips etc. without needing to make a fundamental science breakthrough. Because it is applied science and engineering. Doesn't mean that it's not important, but just looking at a different segment.

I think this thing arose because of migration trends (which are directly relevant to demographics). Anyways yes, back to demographics, and we can discuss these again when the issue arises.

Side note but in 20 years if Chinese haven't won more Nobels then we can definitely say something's up, it's still early for Nobel recognition since China's institutional research quality has really ascended quite recently. For now let's just assume the Swedes haven't noticed yet.

 

[Eventine]

Demographics isn't what's going to win or lose Nobel prizes. That's more of a cultural and policy change around risk-taking and support for basic research. Plus, politics, since the Nobel prize is a Western institution, where the judges are all Western.

In other words, it's not that relevant. What people should be far more worried about is the economic effects of an aging society.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!