Search

China communicates strategic narratives about artificial intelligence (AI) in digital media productions to create a shared meaning about its actions and its image in the global race to develop AI. Building upon the literature in emotions and strategic narratives, this study seeks to clarify which emotions are discursively used in China's international AI narratives, and their function and significance. Specifically, the study investigates emotion discourses in AI-focused videos disseminated on China's international broadcasting (CGTN YouTube channel). The analysis reveals that pride, hope and fear discourses have multiple functions in China's international AI narratives on CGTN. Hope is used to represent China as a key competitor in the global AI race, who is catching up to the US. China uses pride to showcase its advances in AI applications, to highlight its transformation of traditional industries, and to identity itself as equal to the US. Fear is used to frame US's perception of China's AI developments, to suggest their crisis of confidence, but also to refute the "China threat". Additionally, the fear discourse is used to deliberate anticipated risks, particularly on job loss and data privacy. These emotion discourses forge China's identity as a future global AI power. The paper then discusses how these findings contribute to key debates about Chinese discourse and media strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since Chinese scholars are playing an increasingly important role in shaping the national landscape of discussion on AI ethics, understanding their ethical concerns and preferred solutions is essential for global cooperation on governance of AI. This article, therefore, provides the first elaborated analysis on the discourse on AI ethics in Chinese academia, via a systematic literature review. This article has three main objectives. (1) to identify the most discussed ethical issues of AI in Chinese academia and those being left out (the question of "what"); (2) to analyze the solutions proposed and preferred by Chinese scholars (the question of "how"); and (3) to map out whose voices are dominating and whose are in the marginal (the question of "who"). Findings suggest that in terms of short-term implications, Chinese scholars' concerns over AI resemble predominantly the content of international ethical guidelines. Yet in terms of long-term implications, there are some significant differences needed to be further addressed in a cultural context. Further, among a wide range of solution proposals, Chinese scholars seem to prefer strong-binding regulations to those weak ethical guidelines. In addition, this article also found that the Chinese academic discourse was dominated by male scholars and those who are from elite universities, which arguably is not a unique phenomenon in China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As China and the United States strive to be the primary global leader in AI, their visions are coming into conflict. This is frequently painted as a fundamental clash of civilisations, with evidence based primarily around each country's current political system and present geopolitical tensions. However, such a narrow view claims to extrapolate into the future from an analysis of a momentary situation, ignoring a wealth of historical factors that influence each country's prevailing philosophy of technology and thus their overarching AI strategies. In this article, we build a philosophy-of-technology-grounded framework to analyse what differences in Chinese and American AI policies exist and, on a fundamental level, why they exist. We support this with Natural Language Processing methods to provide an evidentiary basis for our analysis of policy differences. By looking at documents from three different American presidential administrations––Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden––as well as both national and local policy documents (many available only in Chinese) from China, we provide a thorough comparative analysis of policy differences. This article fills a gap in US–China AI policy comparison and constructs a framework for understanding the origin and trajectory of policy differences. By investigating what factors are informing each country's philosophy of technology and thus their overall approach to AI policy, we argue that while significant obstacles to cooperation remain, there is room for dialogue and mutual growth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]