Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChuckMcM | Hacker News Reader

Here I was looking for the Dr. Strangelove equivalent of the "AI Gap" :-)

Given that in the next four years it is likely that more than half of the PhDs awarded by top US schools are awarded to foreign nationals[1], and our current government policy is to restrict immigration as much as possible, we are on a path to insuring that soon the world will have a much better pool of talent to draw on to do the research than the US will.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/20...

View on HN

Not to sound like an anti-intellectual, but it could be a mistake to assume that innovation comes from academia. Nassim Nicholas Taleb has a convincing chapter (I think it is Chapter 13: Lecturing Birds to Fly) in his book "Antifragile" about this very thing.

Then there are cultural differences that could be at play concerning innovation. It is a general observation that east asian cultures tend to suppress risk-taking and innovation. Whereas, western cultures seem to promote risk-taking and innovation. That is not to say that there aren't risk takers in China and risk averse individuals in the West...just that overall there may be asymmetry. And, very little asymmetry can create very big differences.

So, have all the smartest people you want, doing all the research you want; but if they have no pressure to put that research to practice, nor a desire or support to take the risks associated with implementation then you might as well have nobody doing anything.

Just a thought.

> Not to sound like an anti-intellectual, but could it be a misnomer to assume that innovation comes from academia.

The use of “misnomer” in that sentence is, itself, misnomer. What you describe is, perhaps, a mistake, but not in naming.

A wordsmith I am not. Thanks for the correction.

Friendly writing advice: use simple words. Elongated romance (etymologically-Latin) terms sound pompous. Short words are better. Think "gut" not "stomach".

I don't think that line of reasoning is completely wrong but I think it's often over-emphasized as some sort of durable higher truth rather than a simplification of very complicated social factors, and usually this tends to significantly under-weight the ability to change things — e.g. many Americans are used to thinking that we have a huge cultural lead for entrepreneurship but the popular opinion there hasn't adjusted for the degree to which Europe, Canada, Israel, etc. have closed that gap over the last couple decades.

In the case of China, I don't think there's any question that it used to have higher barriers to innovation but I'm not comfortable concluding that this will be true for that much longer given how many people are trying to change it. Every time I read one of Bunnie Huang's gongkai posts[1] it really seems like the view in 20 years will be radically different.

1. https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?cat=20

I agree. I wasn't using it as de-facto; rather as an idea that may calm the panic of "OMG They have more X than we do!" "They have more X than we do" only works to determine an outcome if all other things are perfectly equal, which they are not. My primary point was the idea that academia does not necessarily mean applied innovation.

That said, how long does it take for a culture to change part of its core structure? Cultures seem to me evolutionary and, aside from rare radical mutations, very slow to change. Then again, with over a 1.3 billion people there are sure to be plenty of sub-cultures with enough size to be a driving force for the whole.

> Not to sound like an anti-intellectual, but it could be a mistake to assume that innovation comes from academia

It isn't that innovation necessarily comes from academia, but that academia is a reflection of how wealthy and educated the population is. Innovation comes from the wealthy and the educated. So as china gets wealthier, they will innovate more.

> It is a general observation that east asian cultures tend to suppress risk-taking and innovation.

That's an "observation" based on racism and nonsense.

> just that overall there may be asymmetry.

Based on what evidence? It's just silly things people say - "The west is more individualistic". A society based on "white supremacy" is "individualistic"? How is basing one's ideology on "race - a genetic/communal" concept individualistic.

All these things are essentially nonsense created by people who want to sell books/etc. There is no truth.

You could write a book saying the west is collectivistic and china is individualistic by cherrypicking any data.

> So, have all the smartest people you want, doing all the research you want; but if they have no pressure to put that research to practice, nor a desire or support to take the risks associated with implementation then you might as well have nobody doing anything.

What makes you think they won't?

Greed works on the chinese as much as westerners. The things you need to "innovate" are wealth and security. Innovation is a luxury. The chinese will innovate as they get wealth and security.

The chinese are risk averse and yet they love gambling. They are risk averse and chinese have immigrated all over the world.

> academia is a reflection of how wealthy and educated the population is

This is correct, but that doesn't mean causation. Look at any civilization and look at what came first wealth or academia. It seems to me that wealth creates academia.

> That's an "observation" based on racism and nonsense.

Saying something is "racist" does not constitute an argument. I didn't say whether it was "good" or "bad" to have a culture that promotes or suppresses risk taking...no one can. It is not "racist" to say that two things are not exactly the same.

> The things you need to "innovate" are wealth and security. Innovation is a luxury.

Dead wrong. Wealth and security create complacency. "Necessity is the mother of invention" is not just some stupid quip.

>What makes you think they won't?

I don't. My entire post was a postulation, which is why I used phrases such as "it could be", "general observation" and "there may be", etc. It appears that you are merely looking for a fight instead of having a conversation.

> It seems to me that wealth creates academia.

Yes. That's was my point. You get wealthy, then you get "civilized".

> Saying something is "racist" does not constitute an argument.

No. But saying an "observation" based on "racism" is an argument.

> I didn't say whether it was "good" or "bad" to have a culture that promotes or suppresses risk taking...no one can.

Well you did imply it...

> Dead wrong. Wealth and security create complacency.

Not dead wrong. Dead truth. It can for some people, but it also gives people FREE TIME to pursue other things. I didn't say EVERYONE would become innovative. My point is that you need wealth and security to be innovative.

>"Necessity is the mother of invention" is not just some stupid quip.

Like all quotes. It is. And without wealth and security, not much time or resources to innovate.

> I don't. My entire post was a postulation, which is why I used phrases such as "it could be", "general observation" and "there may be", etc.

You don't but that's a lot of "implying" what you think.

> It appears that you are merely looking for a fight instead of having a conversation.

I would but you seem quite defensive. I wasn't calling you racist. I said the observation was based on "racism". Lumping 1.4 billion into one "stereotype" is the definition of racism.

Also, as I noted, I debunked most of your "it could be"s.

>It is a general observation that east asian cultures tend to suppress risk-taking and innovation. Whereas, western cultures seem to promote risk-taking and innovation.

It's not a general observation. It is an idea promoted by westerners to make them feel superior. Creative, innovative thinking is not the norm anywhere. Everyone who thinks new thoughts is an outlier by definition, in every society.

It's not about "talent".

It's about environments that are able to support new ventures in businesses, technology, and what have you. China is increasingly such an environment.

A key Chinese collaborator of mine on this https://hackaday.io/project/21966-quamera and I have chatted about the 'old' China and the 'new' China - he thought up, designed, and built a company around making a general purpose FPGA that allows for a wide range of imagers to be attached via standardized I2C/SPI or USB bussing. He's very much the new China, and while there are cultural differences, there's no question that an ever growing number can be either incredible collaborators or fearsome competitors - a lot of that choice is up to us.

Arguably, it is better for the entire humanity if PhDs and other talent are spread out across the whole world rather than monopolized by one single nation. That's how knowledge gets transferred and the whole world improves.

Immigration is not the solution. Do you have any idea how restrictive China is on immigration?

The point is that Top Chinese PhDs got degrees from Top us schools are forced back. Not that immigration are needed for China.

The point is that educating the best minds of the world and then expelling them to their origin countries is not a wise practice.

It is a very wise practice from a soft power perspective.

China also restricts democracy and access to the internet, but that's not to say the US wouldn't be harmed by a move in that direction. China has different strengths and weaknesses; the US would be ill advised to give up its own strengths.

Far less restrictive than US and EU.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com