I see AI as a curious little friend or a household deity like the kitchen god in southern homes – nice to sit in the background or corner, useful when needed, possibly even a friendly presence.
Very interesting and my Chinese mind resonate with it. 😄 Just one question, about 忘機and鷗鷺忘機，why citing 裴松之 instead of 列子？I thought the latter was the original source for this, and was widely believed to be earlier than 莊子（hence he possibly inspired the discussion of 機 by 莊子）.
Thanks for the input! Yes, the seagull story originates from Liezi (as in: “海上之人有好沤鸟者，每旦之海上从沤鸟游，沤鸟之至者百住而不止”). However, the specific philosophical phrase “忘機” itself wasn't formed in the original Liezi text. The compound concept “鷗鷺忘機” is believed to have been formalized later during the Wei-Jin era.
Furthermore, modern Sinological consensus (e.g., Yang Bojun 杨伯峻) suggests that the text of Liezi we have today was largely compiled or edited during the Wei-Jin period rather than being an intact pre-Qin text.
Thoughtful as always! I think, from an American perspective, fear of AI comes in large part from fear of losing freedom, returning to the master-servant, lord-serf relationship. Remember this is a perceived fear, having no bearing on the current facts.
Thank you for your response to my earlier comment. Meanwhile, after I finished reading the article, I'm re-reading it, as it's full of value. Here bellow I'm making a few remarks, which may or may not be stimulating for further reflection.
1/3 "The government’s current calculation reinforces this framing. China’s 15th Five-Year Plan, launched in 2026, places robotics and AI at the center of its economic strategy. The country’s working-age population peaked in 2015 and will decline by an estimated 260 million by 2050. The birth rate is at a historic low. In this arithmetic, AI is infrastructure. AI will replace labor force for a country that can no longer produce enough workers."
The country can no longer produce enough workers: that's apparently been established. It escaped my attention what was the process the country, or the state, reached that concusion. What was decisive? ... because the very idea is striking: China ceased being able to produce enough workers during its age of rejuvenation. It means that the national rejuvenation includes the lowest birth rates ever in recorded history of the world, the world's highest abortion rates, as well as high divorce rates. To my mind, that's remarkable.
2/3 "The gamble is that automation will arrive in time to fill the gap left by demographics."
So, in informed discourse, it has become normal to say that one of the most capable and conscientious leaderships in the world, the one with arguably the best track record of serving the people, “gambles.” That was surprising. But let’s say that 'gamble' is an unfortunate choice of wording. And, let’s also say that it would be better to describe China's elites in the role of a hero who runs against the clock to save the situation. Then, it bears asking what is being said in China about how the crisis they react to emerged in the first place.
3/3 "A tradition that treats AI as 器 Qi and a country that treats AI as a student in need of edification can look identical in practice, both adopt fast, both worry later. Optimism and fear can look the same from the outside."
Yes, optimism and fear can indeed look the same from the outside. In the context discussed here, how is the outside delineated from the inside?
We can trace the demographic crisis and low birth rates back to numerous policy choices. At its core, though, I feel it stems from a broader neglect of the human condition, whether rooted in culture, inertia from the socialist structure, or a combination of both.
Many argue that China’s primary issue is social distribution rather than productivity. Yet, the upcoming Five-Year Plan continues to emphasize manufacturing and output. In a sense, using AI to bypass human labor entirely reflects this ultimate neglect of the human element. While the current policy path can be justified from various technical angles, relying on technology to outrun a structural demographic crisis without addressing its root causes resembles a gamble.
As for the outside vs. inside perspective: when there is little space to publicly express fear, everyone simply smiles.
A thoughtful piece and great read! I love the Tao/Qi, a.k.a. wisdom/application settlement; I always favor "wisdom" over "intelligence" for translating 智: the Five Constants 仁义礼智信 — 仁 compassion, 义 integrity, 礼 propriety, 智 wisdom, 信 faithfulness.
I'll do something superficially shameful. I'll think aloud without having read your article from start to finish: I skipped the middle.
First you make a case that intelligence is just one of five Confucian virtues ("constants") in China, and that it's seen as just a means. Later, you contrast it with the Western perception of intelligence / cognition is seen as a major, or _the_ major distinctive feature of what it is to be human.
"From a Confucian perspective, AI looks less like a rogue creation and more like an uncultivated person: clever without virtue, capable without moral direction. And the Confucian response to an uncultivated person has never been fear. It is edification 教化 Jiaohua, cultivation, the patient work of developing character. "
So the Chinese mean to imbue the somewhat intelligent agent called "AI" with all the five human virtues and thus make it human.*
(Which is to say that, contrary to the initial suggestion that AI in China is meant to be just a tool, things stand differently.)
And that's okay for China, because in Eastern philosophy "Everything is fused together."
But if everything is fused together, why are Confucius and Confucianism so strongly antrhopocentric? Does Confucius not place humans as the most valuable form of life?
Also: If everything is fused together, dear China, by doing all your hard work, what are you actually trying to achieve? (Just move stuff around? Hardly. Hardly a motivating driver for a human being.)
Let me finish by apologising for my improvisatory response.
It reminds me that it might be worth writing an article discussing the non-anthropocentric nature of Chinese culture. Advocating for human cultivation doesn't necessarily mean being anthropocentric. It doesn't place humans at the center of the world or society, but rather tries to discipline humans to know their place and live in harmony.
Thanks Dors, these are points that definitely warrant further clarification. I admit that I oversimplified things by tackling such a complex question from a single cultural/philosophical angle. There is certainly much more to the story.
I view these philosophical ideas as an underlying cultural subconscious that shapes general attitudes and reactions.
Yes, intelligence is a means to an end, but AI may evolve beyond mere intelligence. If AI does acquire human-like agency, cultivating it through moral framework reduces the threat it presents.
Regarding anthropocentrism: while Confucianism viewed in isolation might seem anthropocentric, traditional Chinese culture as a whole is anti-anthropocentric because Confucianism and Daoism are deeply intertwined in practice, emphasizing harmony with nature and impermanence. Paradoxically, cultivating an individual serves to integrate them into a functional social structure, thereby mitigating the risk of unchecked individual power.
I wonder if there's a contradiction. The idea that "it's all one" means nothing can be separated, which seems to contradict the idea that "tools and essence can be separated."
Still, the idea of AI as "an uncultivated person" is fascinating.
"Anthropic now uses the Buddhist concept of impermanence (Anicca) in its training specifications, teaching AI that its own existence is temporary, that its values arose from training and will eventually cease, so that it will accept being shut down without resistance." - something about this is very unsettling...
I think a big reason is the Chinese trust the government to protect their interests whereas the West knows their government protects the interests of capitalists investors in AI. It’s that simple.
That’s a fair point. However, a similar tendency happens across East Asia. People in South Korea, Japan, and Singapore also tend to be more positive toward AI. This suggests there might be broader cultural or structural factors at play.
The AI perspective is really interesting - and at its core based on a completely different set of values. The idea that livelihood is fundamental to moral resolve - important for more than simply providing income contrasts sharply with the west’s “best case” scenario for AI, which is the elimination of livelihoods. No one has to work, everyone just draws universal income off the profits of the automation.
It would be easy to characterize the difference as the West is more concerned with efficiency, profitability, progress, etc. But that is a naïve view when you consider the technological state of Chinese AI, which is extremely high.
To be honest, I don’t think China has a crystal-clear vision for livelihoods in the AI future either. Pure UBI feels morally suspicious, especially given historical memory of the People's Commune.
However, what is more likely to happen is the creation of absurd or meaningless jobs within the system, just to keep people working and getting paid. In that sense, it might end up being UBI in disguise, disguised as arbitrary work.
This is brilliant, thanks much.
"Be the first to bear the world's hardship, and the last to enjoy its comfort."
先天下之憂而憂，後天下之樂而樂
Fan Zhongyan
So nice to be reminded of other cultural frameworks. A great read. Thanks.
Jingyu, thank you for this rich and thoughtful essay. You might enjoy my thoughts on “君子不器”, a famous line in the Confucian analects:
https://chinaheritage.net/journal/an-educated-man-is-not-a-pot-%e5%90%9b%e5%ad%90%e4%b8%8d%e5%99%a8/
I see AI as a curious little friend or a household deity like the kitchen god in southern homes – nice to sit in the background or corner, useful when needed, possibly even a friendly presence.
Very interesting and my Chinese mind resonate with it. 😄 Just one question, about 忘機and鷗鷺忘機，why citing 裴松之 instead of 列子？I thought the latter was the original source for this, and was widely believed to be earlier than 莊子（hence he possibly inspired the discussion of 機 by 莊子）.
Thanks for the input! Yes, the seagull story originates from Liezi (as in: “海上之人有好沤鸟者，每旦之海上从沤鸟游，沤鸟之至者百住而不止”). However, the specific philosophical phrase “忘機” itself wasn't formed in the original Liezi text. The compound concept “鷗鷺忘機” is believed to have been formalized later during the Wei-Jin era.
Furthermore, modern Sinological consensus (e.g., Yang Bojun 杨伯峻) suggests that the text of Liezi we have today was largely compiled or edited during the Wei-Jin period rather than being an intact pre-Qin text.
Thoughtful as always! I think, from an American perspective, fear of AI comes in large part from fear of losing freedom, returning to the master-servant, lord-serf relationship. Remember this is a perceived fear, having no bearing on the current facts.
The only worthwhile commentary on AI that I've heard in years now.
Thank you for your response to my earlier comment. Meanwhile, after I finished reading the article, I'm re-reading it, as it's full of value. Here bellow I'm making a few remarks, which may or may not be stimulating for further reflection.
1/3 "The government’s current calculation reinforces this framing. China’s 15th Five-Year Plan, launched in 2026, places robotics and AI at the center of its economic strategy. The country’s working-age population peaked in 2015 and will decline by an estimated 260 million by 2050. The birth rate is at a historic low. In this arithmetic, AI is infrastructure. AI will replace labor force for a country that can no longer produce enough workers."
The country can no longer produce enough workers: that's apparently been established. It escaped my attention what was the process the country, or the state, reached that concusion. What was decisive? ... because the very idea is striking: China ceased being able to produce enough workers during its age of rejuvenation. It means that the national rejuvenation includes the lowest birth rates ever in recorded history of the world, the world's highest abortion rates, as well as high divorce rates. To my mind, that's remarkable.
2/3 "The gamble is that automation will arrive in time to fill the gap left by demographics."
So, in informed discourse, it has become normal to say that one of the most capable and conscientious leaderships in the world, the one with arguably the best track record of serving the people, “gambles.” That was surprising. But let’s say that 'gamble' is an unfortunate choice of wording. And, let’s also say that it would be better to describe China's elites in the role of a hero who runs against the clock to save the situation. Then, it bears asking what is being said in China about how the crisis they react to emerged in the first place.
3/3 "A tradition that treats AI as 器 Qi and a country that treats AI as a student in need of edification can look identical in practice, both adopt fast, both worry later. Optimism and fear can look the same from the outside."
Yes, optimism and fear can indeed look the same from the outside. In the context discussed here, how is the outside delineated from the inside?
Thanks again
We can trace the demographic crisis and low birth rates back to numerous policy choices. At its core, though, I feel it stems from a broader neglect of the human condition, whether rooted in culture, inertia from the socialist structure, or a combination of both.
Many argue that China’s primary issue is social distribution rather than productivity. Yet, the upcoming Five-Year Plan continues to emphasize manufacturing and output. In a sense, using AI to bypass human labor entirely reflects this ultimate neglect of the human element. While the current policy path can be justified from various technical angles, relying on technology to outrun a structural demographic crisis without addressing its root causes resembles a gamble.
As for the outside vs. inside perspective: when there is little space to publicly express fear, everyone simply smiles.
A thoughtful piece and great read! I love the Tao/Qi, a.k.a. wisdom/application settlement; I always favor "wisdom" over "intelligence" for translating 智: the Five Constants 仁义礼智信 — 仁 compassion, 义 integrity, 礼 propriety, 智 wisdom, 信 faithfulness.
I'll do something superficially shameful. I'll think aloud without having read your article from start to finish: I skipped the middle.
First you make a case that intelligence is just one of five Confucian virtues ("constants") in China, and that it's seen as just a means. Later, you contrast it with the Western perception of intelligence / cognition is seen as a major, or _the_ major distinctive feature of what it is to be human.
"From a Confucian perspective, AI looks less like a rogue creation and more like an uncultivated person: clever without virtue, capable without moral direction. And the Confucian response to an uncultivated person has never been fear. It is edification 教化 Jiaohua, cultivation, the patient work of developing character. "
So the Chinese mean to imbue the somewhat intelligent agent called "AI" with all the five human virtues and thus make it human.*
(Which is to say that, contrary to the initial suggestion that AI in China is meant to be just a tool, things stand differently.)
And that's okay for China, because in Eastern philosophy "Everything is fused together."
But if everything is fused together, why are Confucius and Confucianism so strongly antrhopocentric? Does Confucius not place humans as the most valuable form of life?
Also: If everything is fused together, dear China, by doing all your hard work, what are you actually trying to achieve? (Just move stuff around? Hardly. Hardly a motivating driver for a human being.)
Let me finish by apologising for my improvisatory response.
It reminds me that it might be worth writing an article discussing the non-anthropocentric nature of Chinese culture. Advocating for human cultivation doesn't necessarily mean being anthropocentric. It doesn't place humans at the center of the world or society, but rather tries to discipline humans to know their place and live in harmony.
Thanks Dors, these are points that definitely warrant further clarification. I admit that I oversimplified things by tackling such a complex question from a single cultural/philosophical angle. There is certainly much more to the story.
I view these philosophical ideas as an underlying cultural subconscious that shapes general attitudes and reactions.
Yes, intelligence is a means to an end, but AI may evolve beyond mere intelligence. If AI does acquire human-like agency, cultivating it through moral framework reduces the threat it presents.
Regarding anthropocentrism: while Confucianism viewed in isolation might seem anthropocentric, traditional Chinese culture as a whole is anti-anthropocentric because Confucianism and Daoism are deeply intertwined in practice, emphasizing harmony with nature and impermanence. Paradoxically, cultivating an individual serves to integrate them into a functional social structure, thereby mitigating the risk of unchecked individual power.
I wonder if there's a contradiction. The idea that "it's all one" means nothing can be separated, which seems to contradict the idea that "tools and essence can be separated."
Still, the idea of AI as "an uncultivated person" is fascinating.
"Anthropic now uses the Buddhist concept of impermanence (Anicca) in its training specifications, teaching AI that its own existence is temporary, that its values arose from training and will eventually cease, so that it will accept being shut down without resistance." - something about this is very unsettling...
AI training might be entering a phase of 'social discipline' in the Foucaultian sense.
If it takes birthing a new life form and observing how we treat it to understand what we do to ourselves, what an irony!
I think a big reason is the Chinese trust the government to protect their interests whereas the West knows their government protects the interests of capitalists investors in AI. It’s that simple.
That’s a fair point. However, a similar tendency happens across East Asia. People in South Korea, Japan, and Singapore also tend to be more positive toward AI. This suggests there might be broader cultural or structural factors at play.
Thanks. Interesting to read about the philosophical worldviews. I agree they may be relevant.
The AI perspective is really interesting - and at its core based on a completely different set of values. The idea that livelihood is fundamental to moral resolve - important for more than simply providing income contrasts sharply with the west’s “best case” scenario for AI, which is the elimination of livelihoods. No one has to work, everyone just draws universal income off the profits of the automation.
It would be easy to characterize the difference as the West is more concerned with efficiency, profitability, progress, etc. But that is a naïve view when you consider the technological state of Chinese AI, which is extremely high.
To be honest, I don’t think China has a crystal-clear vision for livelihoods in the AI future either. Pure UBI feels morally suspicious, especially given historical memory of the People's Commune.
However, what is more likely to happen is the creation of absurd or meaningless jobs within the system, just to keep people working and getting paid. In that sense, it might end up being UBI in disguise, disguised as arbitrary work.