The reason why ASPI is hyping up Chinese capabilities is pretty straightforward - it wants the West to put more money in research and double down. This is a standard practice extensively employed by the US defense base to get more money from Congress.
The reason you reject it is pretty straight forward and it's that you spend your time playing with sheets and data to find any way possible to spin things to look like the US is moving faster than China instead of the other way around, which is known throughout the entire world or America wouldn't be doing brain-fart things like threatening to invade Greenland.
A person who selectively believes stuff that aligns with his preconceived notion is a fool of the highest order.
A person who doesn't even understand after being explained to that everything is selective is the fool who owns that order.
He doesn't believe in Nature Index, he should also not believe in ASPI tech tracker. Nature Index, and journals like Nature, Science, Cell are still led by people who try hard to be above national bias. While ASPI is built for national bias. The only reason it is hyping Chinese progress is to get more funding. Standard tactic.
You believe in Nature index? Cus the source I sent was published in Nature. What does it mean that I don't believe in Nature Index? I understand what it is, but your interpretation of it is what I, and other members who also understand scientific publications, do not believe in.
Example, while ASPI says China has a strong lead in Generative AI, that is far from true. Gemini, Claude, GPT are still ahead of Chinese models. To top that Chinese themselves agree this, where Chinese leaders have been worrying about the US edge, and whether that can grow bigger.
Firstly, I don't know if your assessment of generative AI is true, since you've proven that you'll write without understanding economics or how scientific publications work. Secondly, China is known to be very humble and the US, quite the opposite.
Firstly,
@manqiangrexue wrote "China leading in 90% technologies". He's using ASPI tracker which measure certain things, to draw inference on state of play in various tech.
Which is better than your own "analysis" ignoring real world application such as industrial patents and other journals than a few top American ones.
Secondly, ASPI's tracker for example in Generative AI makes no sense because most research in Generative AI happens within large firms, few of which open source anything.
So basically, they couldn't know since it's all secret, right? And already, this is different from what you said above about the US leading. I knew you always talk without understanding what you're saying.
Other than that, the top papers in NeurIPS etc. (not the total papers) are still coming from the US.
Oh this shit again LOL. Keep excluding papers until you get a sample where the US looks on top. Old dog old tricks.
It requires deep understanding of the field to understand who is ahead on what. Counting total publications in list of journals is one very heavily skewed metric,
Not nearly as skewed as counting only select publications/journals.
which
@manqiangrexue believes when it shows China leading but discards when it shows China not leading.
I don't even think you know what selective means because I believe in the big picture of all publications and patents included, and you selectively pick out journals and publications to include and exclude until you can make it look like the US is leading, and you post that. Then you say I'm the one being selective? LOL I'm a lot less selective than you, my "fool of the highest order" hypocrit.
