Looking back at the history of the past few centuries, we can observe a remarkable phenomenon: the United States has won three consecutive victories over its major adversaries at the economic and strategic levels.
Initially, Britain was a formidable adversary of the United States, and there was no shortage of fierce conflicts between the two countries, but the United States managed to surpass Britain's economic status in the second half of the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century, the United States, with its vast economy and the support of its allies, defeated Germany and Japan, and then took over global leadership from the European powers. After the end of World War II, the United States welcomed its most formidable adversary, the Soviet Union, but the fall of the Kremlin marked the defeat of the Soviet Union, and the United States once again consolidated its hegemony.
There are many theories about America's success, with some attributing it to its strategic location and abundant natural resources, others attributing it to advanced institutions and ideologies, and others citing geopolitical opportunities and the contribution of immigrants. However, a key factor that is often overlooked is the enormous role of the world's three industrial revolutions in promoting the rise of the United States.
The "Industrial Revolution" is actually more aptly called the "Industrial Revolution", and the core driving force behind it is the technological wave. The first industrial revolution was led by steam-powered technology, with the United States rising rapidly as a catch-up; The Second Industrial Revolution was dominated by electric and internal combustion engine technologies, and the United States was on a par with the European powers during this phase; The Third Industrial Revolution centered on information technology such as chips and software, and the United States became the undisputed leader.
The first industrial revolution began in the sixties of the 18th century, when the United States was still a predominantly agricultural country. Despite the smoke billowing from Manchester's factories, the United States is still toiling on its westward expansion. However, after the Revolutionary War, the United States began to systematically introduce and imitate British technology, and although Britain tried to block it, it was ultimately unsuccessful. By 1870, although the United States had not yet caught up with Britain in terms of economic aggregate, its per capita output was close to 76 percent of that of Britain.
The Second Industrial Revolution began in the second half of the 19th century, with electricity and internal combustion engine technology as the central driving force. Many important patents for these two technologies were born in Europe, especially in the United Kingdom and Germany. However, the United States vigorously developed both technologies after the completion of the Civil War and accelerated electrification after 1900. By the 1940s, U.S. manufacturing capacity had surpassed that of all of Europe. In the ensuing World War II, American factories produced war materials at an astonishing rate, such as a B17 bomber every 10 minutes, and finally defeated Japan and Germany with their strong industrial power.
The Third Industrial Revolution began in the 1950s and is also known as the Information Revolution. From transistors to PCs, from digital communications to the Internet, the United States has led almost every innovation. In the process, Europe, Japan, and South Korea gradually lost their leading position, while the Soviet Union lagged behind across the board, which ultimately affected its productivity and military strength. In 1991, the Gulf War, in which the United States used information technology as its core, showed the Soviet Union a huge gap.
Now, as the United States and China, a new strategic rival, are battling it, breakthroughs in AI technologies such as OpenAI's ChatGPT herald the arrival of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Global elites generally agree that AGI technology will be the core driver of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Although this view is not absolutely correct, based on the historical experience of the past three industrial revolutions, if the fourth industrial revolution does break out, the United States will undoubtedly make full use of this "new weapon" to achieve its strategic objectives.
Prior to this, China had been catching up with the United States in the Third Industrial Revolution for decades and had set the criteria for a catch-up: to fully absorb the gains of the previous round of scientific and technological revolution, and to closely follow the leaders in the current one. China has become the world's largest producer and exporter in most of the industries born in the Second Industrial Revolution, such as manufacturing sectors such as steel, railways, automobiles, chemicals, power and appliances; In the emerging industries of the third industrial revolution, such as the Internet, digital communications, smartphones, mobile Internet and artificial intelligence, China is also keeping up with the world trend and trying to catch up even in the weakest field of integrated circuits.
However, the advent of AGI technology has brought new challenges and opportunities to this technology race. History is once again standing at a turning point. How will the United States, as a country with both catch-up and repression experience, use its historical experience to meet new challenges? And how should China respond to this sudden technological change? We will delve into these questions through a series of articles on "The Technology Wave and National Competition", focusing on the following key topics:
- The Road to Transcendence: How Can the Technological Revolution Fuel America's Triple Victory?
- The Top of the Competition: What Is the Comparison of Power in China and the United States in the Information Revolution?
- The Battle for the Future: How Will the United States Respond to the New Technology Wave? How will China respond?
This article will begin with the first topic.
01
After the establishment of independence in 1789, the biggest challenge facing the United States was not how to catch up with Britain, but whether it should follow Britain's development model.
This may seem strange today, but there was such a disagreement at the time. The United States is divided into two factions, one is represented by the founding father Thomas Jefferson, who adheres to the concept of "moral governance" and fears that the development of manufacturing will undermine social morality, so he advocates building the United States into an idyllic agricultural country with yeoman farmers as the main body.
The other faction, led by Alexander Hamilton, the first US Secretary of the Treasury, laid out a blueprint for an industrialized society: a central bank, a unified market, an encouragement of the division of labor, a support for manufacturing, and a tariff to increase fiscal revenues. From a modern perspective, Hamilton can be seen as a staunch "industrialist" who had a profound impact on America's national fortunes for centuries to come.
These two figures, both of whom held high positions in American history, had their own flaws in their private lives: although Jefferson advocated freedom and equality, as a plantation owner, he owned many slaves and even had affairs with black slave girls; Hamilton, on the other hand, had an impulsive personality and had a duel with Vice President Burr, and eventually died tragically.
Although Hamilton's death was dramatic, it had seen the "industrialists" gradually gain the upper hand before his death.
The temptation of industrialization is undoubtedly great for the United States. Governments aspire to the fiscal and tax growth that industrialization brings, armies want to have industrially produced advanced weapons, and businessmen dream of huge profits from industrial goods. In addition to the peasant class, all strata of American society were attracted by the prospect of a "rich country and a strong army" and sided with Hamilton.
Jefferson's line was not without reason, the United States had vast undeveloped land at the time, and relying on agriculture did allow its citizens to live relatively comfortably. However, the appeal of industrialization was clearly greater, and even Jefferson himself was gradually drawn to it. In the later "Louisiana Land Purchase Case", Jefferson used the national credit system established by Hamilton to finance the purchase of a large area of land.
The roadmap for early industrialization in the United States basically followed Hamilton's 1791 Report on Manufacturing. The core principles of the report include: supporting domestic industry through incentives or subsidies; the use of trade instruments such as tariffs to protect domestic businesses; Encourage the introduction of overseas talents and technologies. In short, the industry depends on support, trade depends on protection, technology depends on the introduction, and talent depends on attraction.
These ambitious plans naturally alarmed Britain, the forerunner of the Industrial Revolution. The United Kingdom has taken strict precautions, such as banning skilled workers in the textile industry from leaving the country, restricting passengers travelling to North America from carrying drawings and parts, and imposing severe penalties for stealing technical secrets.
As a "catch-up country", how can the United States break through this dilemma? In short, it used various means, including taking advantage of the difference in industrial and agricultural prices to increase fiscal revenues, protecting domestic industries through high tariffs, encouraging factory owners to imitate and copy British advanced technology, and attracting a group of industrial spies to the United States.
Among them, Samuel Slater, known as the "father of the American Industrial Revolution", is a typical example. As a young man, he worked in a cotton mill in England and mastered all the secrets, from machinery to craftsmanship. Later, disguised as a farmer, he successfully evaded the British Navy, and when he arrived in the United States, he established the first modern textile factory in the United States. Although he was considered a "traitor" in the UK, this did not prevent him from becoming a billionaire with 13 factories. This wealth effect sparked the enthusiasm of many more people, and countless people crossed the Atlantic to the United States with British manufacturing secrets.
American society at the time was full of innovation and entrepreneurship. In 1831, the French thinker Alexis de Tocqueville lamented during a visit to the United States: "The whole society is like a great factory." The promulgation of the Patent Law has stimulated the creative enthusiasm of the whole people. Mark Twain invented the self-adhesive note book and it was a great success; President Lincoln also invented in his spare time devices to enhance the buoyancy of ships and a less practical "steam plow".
Mark Twain portrayed the Americans of that era in "Americans in Arthur's Dynasty": "I don't know much poetry, my father was a blacksmith and my uncle was a veterinarian, and I inherited their craft. I went to those great factories...... Learned to make all sorts of things: pistols, cannons, boilers, engines. Any machine that saves labor, I've learned. ”
The social scene of the United States at that time can be described in a modern word - "innovation for all, entrepreneurship for all". In such an atmosphere, the US economy has risen rapidly. From 1800 to 1850, real GDP in the United States grew at an average annual rate of 3.7 percent; At the same time, the population grew rapidly, from 3.9 million in 1790 to 31.5 million in 1860 – four times the growth rate of the European population and six times the global average.
One might think, though, that after a century of frenzied catch-up, the United States must be able to surpass its former overlord, Britain. However, this is not the case.
At the time of the United States' independence in 1776, its GDP was about one-third that of the United Kingdom. However, after a century of efforts, until the 70s of the 19th century, the total GDP of the United States did not surpass that of the United Kingdom, and the per capita output only reached 76% of that of the United Kingdom. By contrast, China's economic catch-up at the beginning of the 21st century has been even more rapid, from a GDP of one-third of Japan's in 2002 to a feat of matching Japan's in 2010.
The reason behind this cannot be ignored: Britain during the Industrial Revolution was so influential and powerful that it was terrifying. It relied on the absolute superiority of the industrial countries over the agricultural countries to expand on a global scale, and in the end only 22 countries survived the British invasion. In the 19th century, Britain had colonies all over the world, covering an area of 33.67 million square kilometers, accounting for a quarter of the world's land area and ruling over hundreds of millions of people. In terms of economic aggregate and per capita output, Britain has always maintained its pressure on the United States.
In addition, it is a little-known fact that the economic miracle of the United States is also inseparable from the "external circulation" with the United Kingdom.
Douglas North, winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Economics, once pointed out that the core driver of early economic growth in the United States was the huge demand for raw materials, especially cotton, in the United Kingdom. Specifically, cotton growers in the southern United States exported a large amount of cotton to the United Kingdom, which accounted for half of the total value of U.S. exports. Subsequently, they used the foreign exchange they earned to buy industrial goods in the northeast and agricultural products in the west, thus boosting the economy of the entire country.
The government is also heavily dependent on this "external circulation". Take, for example, the Second Anglo-American War in 1812, in which the United States tried to hit its economy by embargoing British industrial goods, but it backfired. Not only did it fail to shake Britain's economic position, but it led to a sharp drop in its own tariff revenues and a difficult situation for the federal government. By 1814, the U.S. government had even defaulted on its military pay, and eventually had to rely on international borrowing to keep the country afloat.
In order to wean itself off dependence on the UK, the United States needs to further liberate its productive forces. Fortunately, in the last decades of the 19th century, the United States ushered in the second industrial revolution. The three major innovations of this revolution – electricity, steel, and the internal combustion engine – became the last driving force behind America's rise.
02
Today, Edison's lighting technology, Carnegie's steel empire, and Henry Ford's Model T are known worldwide, but it's worth noting that key technologies such as electricity, steel, and the internal combustion engine were not born in the United States, but in Europe.
In the wave of the electric revolution, the Englishman James Joule laid the theoretical foundation for the conversion of mechanical energy and electrical energy, the Italian Alessandro Volt invented the battery, and the British scientist Michael Faraday built the world's first generator in 1831. France's Picxi gave a further impetus to the development of alternating current generators.
The history of the internal combustion engine is also full of European wisdom. From the early inventions to the final refinement, Britain, France, and Germany played a leading role in it. German engineer Karl Benz succeeded in building the world's first gasoline internal combustion engine in late 1879, and in 1885 introduced a modern car with an internal combustion engine. This innovation marked the beginning of the era of modern automobiles.
In the iron and steel industry, in 1856, the Englishman Henri Bessemer invented the converter steelmaking technology, while the German Carl Siemens invented the regenerative furnace process, which was later improved by the Frenchman Pierre-Emile Martin and put into large-scale production, forming the famous "Siemens-Martin" process. This innovation ushered in the steel industry into the era of cheap steel.
Although Europe contributed a great deal of fundamental innovation to the Second Industrial Revolution, it was the United States that ultimately benefited the most. Taking the steel industry as an example, in 1870, the steel production capacity of the United States was still relatively limited, but American companies quickly introduced advanced smelting methods in Europe and dared to expand production capacity on a large scale, making Cleveland, Bethlehem, Chicago, Pittsburgh and other cities become famous steel production centers. By 1913, the United States had produced more steel than Europe combined, accounting for nearly half of the global share.
The automotive industry is showing a similar trend. Although the French and German automobile industries were born together with the internal combustion engine, with well-known brands such as Mercedes-Benz, Peugeot, and Daimler, American companies such as Ford and General Motors are superior when it comes to mass manufacturing. By 1920, the United States was producing nearly ninety percent of the world's automobiles, with an average of one in five Americans, while Britain and France lagged far behind.
In the field of electricity, the United States not only has a group of outstanding scientists and inventors, such as Edison, Westinghouse, etc., but also is better at transforming new technologies into consumer goods. Incandescent lamps, refrigerators, air conditioners and other power application products have been widely used in the United States, giving birth to electrical giants such as GE and Westinghouse. At the same time, the U.S. is also adept at applying power technology to factories, which has greatly improved the efficiency of manufacturing.
In the age of electricity, the power source of the factory was changed from steam engines or hydraulic to electric motors, which significantly improved the production environment and reduced the complexity of the factory. From 1902 to 1929, the United States increased per capita electricity generation by a factor of 11, the price of electricity fell by 80 percent, and the proportion of electrically powered factories soared from 5 percent to 90 percent in 1939.
The core technologies of the second industrial revolution, such as electric power, iron and steel, and automobiles, all have obvious characteristics of "scale effect", that is, the larger the scale, the lower the cost, and the higher the efficiency. The United States, through its frenzied investment in these new technologies, dramatically increased the efficiency of manufacturing, increasing its share of global manufacturing from 23.3% in 1870 to 35.3% in 1910, while the United Kingdom fell from 31.8% to 14.7% in the same period.
Britain's backwardness in the Second Industrial Revolution was not accidental. Over the years, Britain has enjoyed the glory of the Industrial Revolution, with large industrial assets and entrenched vested interests that have led to a far less embracing of new technologies than in the United States. Britain stuck to the old "coal-steam" technology route, and failed to shift the focus of development from old industries such as textiles and coal to emerging industries such as automobiles, electrical and chemical industries in a timely manner. For example, the Motor Vehicles Act, passed in Britain in 1865, severely hampered the development of the automobile industry and was not repealed until 1895. In contrast, entrepreneurs in the United States are more keenly aware of new trends in the market, have the courage to innovate, and promote the rapid development of the economy.
In the application of power technology, the United Kingdom is clearly far behind the United States. The significant advantages of electric motors over steam engines led the United States to rapidly adopt electric technology to renovate its factories. For example, Ford's Highland Park plant in Michigan, which was established in 1908, built its own power plant and equipped the workshop with electric motors, realizing the "electrification of energy" revolution and greatly improving production efficiency. The plant's annual output is more than that of all other automotive companies in the U.S. combined.
In contrast, factories in Britain were still flooded with all sorts of steam engines. It's not that British industry is reluctant to embrace power technology, it's that the construction of its domestic electricity infrastructure is seriously lagging behind. Ironically, although Britain was one of the most capitalized countries in the world at the time, the high rate of return on its overseas colonies attracted a lot of investment, resulting in underinvestment in domestic infrastructure. However, industries such as power, steel, automobiles, and chemicals are precisely the ones that need "economies of scale".
British economist Leslie Hannah looked back on history with deep sorrow, noting that "in 1914, the three largest manufacturing companies in Britain were all foreign-owned: at the top of the list was Westinghouse Electric, a subsidiary of Westinghouse in the United States; It was followed by Thomson-Houston, a subsidiary of General Electric (GE) in the United States; Siemens Brothers, which ranks third, is a subsidiary of Siemens in Germany. Germany's Siemens employed more than 80,000 workers, while no British manufacturing company had more than 10,000 employees at the time. ”
After a visit to Britain, the American steel magnate Dale Carnegie wrote: "The old empires move slowly like snails, while the new republics gallop like express railroads." ”
Among European countries, Germany and the USSR achieved relatively good results in electrification. Germany, in particular, also successfully seized the opportunity of the second industrial revolution and achieved a rapid rise in industrial power, surpassing Britain before the First World War. Although German industry suffered a severe weakening of the Allies after World War I, after the Nazis came to power, Germany once again increased its production capacity, second only to the United States in steel, coal, aluminum, electricity and automobiles.
However, Germany's biggest problem was its confrontation with the two industrial giants, the United States and the Soviet Union. Eventually, all the accumulation was reduced to rubble by the bombing of Boeing B-17 bombers, and so did Japan. After 1945, all competitors in the American industry, whether strategic or geo-allies, were eliminated, leaving only the Soviet Union, the last adversary.
History is always full of drama: two years after the Iron Curtain of the Cold War opened, the world's first transistor was successfully lit at Bell Labs, ushering in a new electronic age.
03
In September 1976, a global shocking event occurred: a Soviet MiG-25 fighter, originally intended to intercept American bombers, unexpectedly took off from Vladivostok and landed at Hakodate Airport in Japan. This fighter, known as the "flying fox", was once famous for its excellent high-altitude and high-speed performance, but surprisingly, after in-depth dismantling and research, the US military found that its internal avionics system had few transistors, and was replaced by a large number of old vacuum tubes.
This discovery not only reveals the lag of the MiG-25 in avionics technology, but also reflects the significant backwardness of the Soviet Union in the field of transistor and integrated circuit industry. This technological lag is not limited to the military sphere, but also to the civilian sphere. For example, the tube color TV produced in the Soviet Union, compared with similar products in the West, is bulky and heats so much that even thieves can't avoid it.
However, going back to the early 1950s of the Cold War, the Soviet Union's scientific and technological prowess was not so bad. In 1957, the Soviet Union successfully launched the world's first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1, a feat that shocked the world, especially the United States, and felt unprecedented pressure and frustration. This incident, known as the "Sputnik crisis," made the US policymakers deeply realize that it would be difficult to compete with the Soviet Union in the future if they did not concentrate on the development of science and technology and relied only on commercial companies.
In the face of this challenge, the United States has taken a series of measures to form a unique system of scientific and technological innovation. On the one hand, the government has actively involved in the exploration of cutting-edge science and technology, and has established super institutions such as NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), and invested huge sums of money to promote the implementation of a series of major scientific and technological projects. These institutions are not only focused on the space sector, but also involved in numerous technological fields capable of defending American hegemony.
The creation of DARPA is particularly remarkable. Its mission is to prevent the recurrence of technological breakthroughs similar to those launched by Sputnik, while creating technological breakthroughs against America's enemies. DARPA has made remarkable achievements in promoting scientific and technological innovation, such as GPS, meteorological satellites, voice interfaces, the Internet, personal computers, and many other technological breakthroughs, all of which are directly or indirectly supported by DARPA. These technologies have not only shaped the modern world, but have also brought enormous economic and social benefits to the United States.
In addition to the government's active promotion, the United States has also given full play to the advantages of the market economy, encouraged the transformation of scientific and technological achievements into the consumer market, and cultivated a number of business giants. From transistors to personal computers to the Internet and artificial intelligence, every technological breakthrough has spawned new business opportunities and giant corporations. These companies have not only contributed to the prosperity of the U.S. economy, but have also made significant contributions to global scientific and technological progress.
In contrast, the Soviet Union was weak in terms of scientific and technological innovation and commercialization. Although the Soviet Union made remarkable achievements in certain scientific and technological fields, such as aerospace and nuclear energy, there were obvious shortcomings in translating scientific and technological achievements into practical products and commercial applications. This led to the gradual loss of the Soviet Union's leading position in science and technology, and eventually it was unable to compete with Western countries such as the United States.
Overall, the success of the United States in scientific and technological innovation and commercialization is due to its unique scientific and technological innovation system and market economic advantages. The defeat of the Soviet Union exposed its inadequacies in scientific and technological innovation and commercialization. This historical experience still has important enlightenment significance for today's scientific and technological development.
In the wave of scientific and technological development, the rise of integrated circuits gave birth to Intel and Texas Instruments in the United States; The mainframe boom made IBM an industry leader; The advent of the PC has fueled the rise of businesses such as Apple and Microsoft; The boom in enterprise software has given birth to giants such as Oracle and Adobe, which are worth more than 100 billion dollars. The revolution in digital communications has put Qualcomm, Cisco, and Motorola at the forefront of the industry; The popularity of the Internet has allowed companies such as Yahoo, Amazon, Google and Facebook to lead the way. The smartphone revolution has brought Apple to life once again; The rise of artificial intelligence has put Nvidia and OpenAI in the global spotlight.
Every time a tech giant emerges, the U.S. tech "dream team" adds a big general, and its overall strength is growing day by day. In stark contrast, however, the Soviet Union's scientific and technological "elite team" was never able to achieve a breakthrough, and there were few names on its list.
In the early 1980s, the total number of scientific researchers in the Soviet Union was as high as 1.43 million, ranking first in the world, and the proportion of R&D expenditure to GDP was as high as 4.7%, far exceeding the level of 2~3% in the United States, Japan and European countries. However, due to the lack of effective market mechanisms and the blockade of overseas markets, these investments have not been able to incubate self-sufficient tech giants. Over time, the Soviet Union's investment in scientific research gradually became a heavy financial burden.
Can the scientific research strength of commercial companies be comparable to that of the state apparatus? Taking mainframes as an example, the United States dominated the mainframe computer market using transistors in the 1960s~70s. With its System/360 project, IBM invested huge amounts of money and human resources and eventually became a leader in the industry. When the Soviet Union tried to copy IBM's System/360, it not only copied the hardware, but also reverse-engineered the operating system. However, this effort did not bring the desired results, but instead widened the gap between the Soviet Union in the field of science and technology.
Looking back at history, we can find that the tactics adopted by the United States when it was catching up with the British Industrial Revolution were almost all copied by the Soviet Union when it was catching up with the United States, including imitation, plagiarism, technical espionage, state bills, financial subsidies, trade protection, and talent introduction. However, in the process of catching up with the United States, the Soviet Union neglected the most crucial link - the market. As Mises put it: "Where there is no market, even the best plans and directives are empty words." ”
In the face of the Soviet Union's catch-up, the United States resolutely strengthened the government's financial input and learned the Soviet Union's "planning" methods. However, when the Soviet Union caught up with the United States, although it strengthened the government's input and planning, it was unable to imitate the "market" methods of the United States. Ultimately, this led to the overall backwardness of the Soviet Union in the field of information technology.
History is harsh on losers. The mark left by the USSR on the world in the information age is almost only a game called "Tetris". The game was born in 1985, and the metaphor behind it is profound: it was the mistakes that accumulated bit by bit that ultimately led to the defeat of the Soviet Union.
04
Back in 1780, the United States had only three steam engines, but today this young continent has become a global leader in technology. After more than two centuries of evolution, the United States has undergone a magnificent transformation from a "catch-up" to a "frontrunner", during which there is no lack of competition and surpassing with competitors.
As an emerging empire with a short history, the United States has both the process of catching up and the experience of suppressing pursuers; It led on the straights and also overtook in the corners. In the process, the United States has accumulated a wealth of strategic wisdom and has become familiar with the strategies in its toolbox on how to deal with the next challenger.
Whenever the United States faces a critical moment when it faces a strategic adversary, the technological revolution always seems to be able to bring it "timely rain". Fueled by internal combustion engines and electric technology, the United States has managed to catch up with the United Kingdom; In the Second Industrial Revolution, the United States built huge production capacity to meet the challenges of Germany and Japan; And when the Soviet Union became its main adversary, the information revolution kicked off at the right time, providing the United States with new opportunities for development.
At a time when AGI (Generalization of Artificial Intelligence) seems to be about to start the fourth industrial revolution, what wisdom can we draw from history?
First of all, the market economy and business innovation are the key driving forces for the development of science and technology. Commercial companies play a major role in every wave of technology, and the United States is undoubtedly the leader in nurturing business giants. As a catch-up, firmly following the road of market economy and encouraging technological innovation and wealth creation is the only way to success.
Second, government support and investment in science and technology are also crucial. The U.S. government has always played an important role in the development of science and technology, whether as a catch-up, a progression, or a leader, and has not hesitated to invest in technology. However, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States' attitude towards government-subsidized R&D has changed, but this change should not be a template for chasers to imitate.
Third, we can't afford to leave a potential technological revolution to chance. One of the important reasons why Britain was overtaken by the United States in the second industrial revolution was the lack of attention to new technologies and the constraints of existing assets. Although the breakthrough of AGI has not yet been fully confirmed, we should not let our guard down because of this, and we should respond and prepare in advance.
Finally, it is indispensable to maintain an attitude of openness and learning. In the course of its development, the United States has always maintained an attitude of openness and learning from the outside world, and has provided strong support for its development, whether it is importing advanced technology or learning from the experience of other countries. As a catch-up, we should actively learn from the West and constantly improve our own strength.
Of course, the premise for these experiences to work is that the pursuers themselves have sufficient strategic strength. Although China lagged behind in the first half of the information revolution, it has gradually narrowed the gap with the United States through reform, opening up, and years of hard work. In the wave of AGI, China needs to continue to keep up with the dead bite and avoid being opened up by its opponents at a critical moment. At the same time, we also need to understand the strength of the United States in the field of science and technology so that we can better formulate a response strategy. This will be something we will explore in a future article.
Source: Internet
Artificial Intelligence, Visual Algorithms, Big Data, Charging Piles, Energy Storage System Integration, Smart Charging Operation Platform
|New Energy Electric Vehicles||New Energy ||Intelligent information system, solution, operation platform construction
Huayuan System is committed to artificial intelligence (AI algorithm and streaming media technology), information software technology, new energy, Internet of Things and other fields of integrators, in the smart community, smart park, smart parking, charging pile (energy storage charging station/optical storage and charging) and charging pile software management platform, energy storage system integration, Internet of vehicles has a complete set of solutions and successful project cases.
Note: The materials cited in this article are legally obtained through public channels such as the Internet, and are only used for industry communication and learning, and have no commercial purpose. The copyright belongs to the author of the original material or the publishing house, and the editor does not assume any legal responsibility for the copyright issues involved. If the copyright owner or publisher believes that this article is infringing, please contact the editor immediately to delete it.