The Artificial Intelligence Summit will be held on September 30. Song Bing, vice president of the Bogurui Research Institute and director of the China Center, was invited to have a conversation with Nicholas Mielle, co-founder and chairman of the Future Association, at the sub-forum of "Cross Looks - AI, Lost in ?". They expressed their views on the topic of "How are the different understandings of the principles of artificial intelligence in different cultures?" To present the live dialogue more clearly, we have made some streamlining and excerpts of the interview content. For details, please watch the video.

Q1

Is artificial intelligence a cultural concept?

Mielle: The answer is of course yes. As a form of expression, artificial intelligence has profound social-technological characteristics and dominates people's imagination, especially the imagination about social-technology. Different cultures will have different opinions and risk preferences. Europeans are relatively more cautious, to a certain extent, a little technologically fearful, and more technologically realistic. However, China, the United States and some developing countries are more proactive in using technology and are more "obsessed" with new technologies. So, from a definitional point of view, AI is obviously a cultural concept because of the different degrees of regional development. In addition, artificial intelligence has natural cultural attributes. Because values are not born out of thin air, values are rooted in culture.

Song Bing: Yes, not right. When discussing culture, values are obviously a topic that cannot be avoided. I personally summarized a "three-level framework" for analyzing values. The first level is the basic values, the second level is the middle-level values, and the third level is the superficial values.

Basic values refer to common values that are thought from the overall interests of human beings and other existences. The values we will see at the basic level are: interconnectivity, connectivity, relationship, inter-embedding and symbiosis. At this level, differences between cultures lose meaning and become less important. These values are particularly important in the risks and challenges of human survival levels, such as the values of human society under the COVID-19 pandemic.

Surface values are the result of the transformation and integration of the value system with the development of modernization and economic globalization. For example, the pursuit of prosperity, wealth, efficiency, convenience and competition. At this level, cultural differences are also in a state of suppression. This also explains why the world is seeking economic development regardless of the cultural and geographical regions it comes from.

At mid-level values, culture will become a key factor. For example, the application methods of certain programs, the general public's attitude towards artificial intelligence and risk assessment, how different values are prioritized, how social development matches and balances with individual rights protection, and different forms and governance cultures of different political governance, etc. The above all make different cultures and societies have different understandings and applications of artificial intelligence.

From a methodological perspective, basic values focus on holistic and symbiotic thinking; while those occupying important positions at the intermediate level and surface level are more binary thinking and zero-sum games. The values of these three levels are intertwined, and the current discussions around artificial intelligence and ethics around the world are mainly focused on values at the surface and intermediate levels. But can these principles and ideas really become the basic values for building common premises for human beings and other existences? To be honest, without the guidance of basic value, the global quarrel will last for a long time.

Q2

Is there a possibility of convergence between different regions of the world? Is it possible to form public definitions and common values?

Mielle: Yes, there is such a possibility, and we must strive to be the same. By "seeking commonality" I mean not that we will agree on everything. Having different social systems, different socio-economic and cultural foundations, and different values is the beauty of diversity.

The key challenge in seeking common ground is how to coordinate "universalization" and diversity, rather than trying to make everything the same. We need to explain what is local and diverse, and what must be common and global. If you want to give a description of a common global position, I think there is some similarity between different regions, which are already reflected in many global common goals. Similarly, we can strive to reconcile and coordinate, and practice the values of freedom, communication and democracy while protecting the interests of all parties.

This process can be full of difficulties. In this scenario, Europe and the United States may feel anxious about whether they can reach an agreement with China, which may be used as an excuse for attack and exclusion. We see that China hopes to participate in the dialogue and jointly promote the achievement of a common position. The United States and Europe have a lot of resistance, doubting whether China's original intention of hope to reach a common position is sincere. So on the one hand, we find the appropriate degree of cooperation, and on the other hand, we clarify the boundaries. This degree is difficult to grasp.

But at least we should seek linguistic and conceptual consensus. Even the Western scientific engineering community will have different opinions on concepts such as "weak artificial intelligence" and "strong artificial intelligence", and there are many consensuses that need to be reached urgently. In my opinion, it is very beneficial to interact with China.

Song Bing: Regarding the issue of "seeking common ground", I think countries around the world have found common ground in many aspects. There are now hundreds of "artificial intelligence principles", not only from the United States and European countries, but also from Asian countries such as China. I found that these principles basically revolve around five themes. One is technology-related, such as security and interpretability. The second is related to personal rights, such as privacy protection. The third aspect is public-related, such as sharing, cooperation, and dialogue. The fourth aspect is related to accountability, such as credibility and responsibility. There are also some broad principles, such as democracy, human rights, fairness and humanitarian spirit.

In short, general consensus has long been formed. The important question is, how will general consensus be interpreted and applied in different cultural contexts? As I pointed out when analyzing the value framework, the intermediate value hierarchy is where most cultural differences appear. In the current geopolitical environment, I am pessimistic about resolving differences because there is a lack of trust between countries. When reading media reports about China, you will find that in these reports, there are many misunderstandings and exaggerations in them, and they often look at China and the Chinese government from a distrustful attitude. Similarly, in China, there is no trust in Western governments and Western media. In a sense, we live in two parallel worlds, in a very complex and chaotic media environment. Therefore, I want to know how to transcend this binary competitive mentality and then propose a discussion about basic values. I think everyone gets together to find out the issues that countries around the world should deal with together, which is the starting point for strengthening their understanding of each other.

Let me give you two specific examples about what is available for discussion. Ideally, the United Nations, the EU or other non-governmental organizations can organize some global projects to truly engage people from different cultural backgrounds. For example, in the face of a global epidemic, just like natural disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis, the United States, the European Union, China and Russia can jointly respond, use artificial intelligence to establish a warning mechanism, and find a response method. Geopolitics may not be eliminated, but we can make more efforts globally to approach the common well-being of all mankind rather than hinder each other.

Another area that can be discussed is the weaponization of artificial intelligence. All countries are deeply influenced by geopolitics and are unlikely to stop research on weaponization of artificial intelligence, but these countries should discuss the bottom line together. For example, when conflicts arise, which civil facilities and key infrastructure cannot be attacked, it has nothing to do with cultural values and political tendencies, and some bottom lines need to be adhered to by all parties.

Mielle: We see two complementary methods appearing. One is top-down global cooperation to discuss ontological and metaphysical factors such as values. I agree with what you said, this approach is not very effective due to strategic tensions. Because of lack of trust, we feel that the other party is instrumentalizing values to satisfy our strategic interests.

However, I think when taking a bottom-up approach, the United States, Europe and China may have a common position on ensuring the safety of autonomous vehicles. We all agree to establish independent review and certification mechanisms to compete in industry around these standards. As a global whole, we need to find best practices for independent review and certification to reflect the common values of security and accountability.

There is a consensus on whether the above three regions have the ability to reach best practices, as you said, we cannot be overly optimistic. Because there is a lot of competition in the industry on certification and standards issues. At present, Europe has decided to use values as an advantage to gain competitiveness. This creates a tension that European countries believe that their AI is superior to other countries because it respects values; at the same time, they try to seek common positions from different countries.

When I compared European artificial intelligence technology with the industrial capacity of China and the United States, to be honest, Europe is indeed slightly inferior. We can continue to create match rules without investing too much in mastering match skills. But in the final analysis, people with the right to speak are people who master the skills of the competition. Therefore, for Europe, we must promote the value of "trusted artificial intelligence", and have corresponding moral and political obligations to accelerate industrial development, master artificial intelligence technology capital, and improve industrial competitiveness. Europe will continue to help global consumers in terms of regulation and policy, but also consider the interests of European workers. It is imminent to combine the long-term goals of values with the weak industrial reality.

Q3

Dialogue with China is indeed important, why is China not part of the global partnership for artificial intelligence?

Song Bing: Generally speaking, the way Europe and the United States reach a consensus is: first publish a declaration, draft a series of principles, collect signatures and make everyone believe and agree with these principles. Since value discussions can be used to achieve geopolitical purposes, people are mostly skeptical about this, especially in combination with the current environment. I think that if we want to put forward common global values, we should ask all relevant parties to participate from the beginning, rather than just letting relevant parties sign the content that has been drafted.

Let’s talk about the question you mentioned just now, that is, Europe not only hopes to dominate the discussion of values, but also believes that its own value system is the best. Is there any tension between the two? I did see this problem. There is such a statement in the European Union's Artificial Intelligence White Paper. Although we cannot predict future digital technologies, European values and ethical principles, social and environmental norms must be applied. ——I think this statement is particularly strange. You don’t even know the trajectory of development, but you conclude that your values will definitely be applicable. You also mentioned that you will export these values to the world. I think if we want to reach a global consensus, we need to abandon our arrogance and rigid attitude towards values.

Mielle: Regarding the issue of global artificial intelligence partners, the G7 and other countries hope to form an "alliance" with "like-minded" countries, jointly envision vision and pathways, and responsibly grasp the power of artificial intelligence and build the future society we want. This has been made very clear, and there was no choice to invite China to form this alliance at the beginning. As for whether doing this is good or bad, it is another discussion. But I think like-minded countries can cooperate, which is why global platforms are needed to build bridges. For this reason, the Secretary-General of the United Nations has established an AI advisory group to try to build a bridge between developing countries, including China and the G7; and has also established a Global Artificial Intelligence Partner Project, aiming to promote credible AI applications to enhance human well-being.

We live in an era full of great change. By building a global dialogue platform, promoting cross-cultural exchanges, promoting academic and ideological innovation, and creating new governance policies, Boguri Research Institute is committed to enhancing mankind's deep understanding of this era of change, cultivating and developing new ideas and concepts, and helping organizations, policy makers and the public around the world respond to profound changes that affect mankind.