China's not thrilled its AI experts want to leave the country

China appears to be unhappy about its brightest AI talent going offshore, either to visit or to sell their wares. One sign of Beijing’s ire appeared this week in a statement from the China Computer Federation (CCF), an organization that promotes development of computer science academics in the Middle Kingdom. The CCF’s beef …

[Anonymous Coward]

Once Xi talks to Putin

The USA and right wing bits of the Eu and Australia will have a crack down on Chinese tech visas

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong headline

Should be "US-based organisation doesn't like Chinese experts"

[that one in the corner]

Re: Wrong headline

It certainly does read like that, just going from the start of the article:

> NeurIPS therefore believes it can’t accept submissions from any SDN or affiliates

So, US company doesn't want some people to contribute (or isn't prepared to take any risks over, especially as the SDN sanctions appear to be concerned with financial transactions, bank accounts and the like); followed by

> CCF’s statement accuses NeurIPS of violating ... and calls on the org to “immediately correct its erroneous practices, and restore equal rights for submissions and academic exchange to all institutions"

Which, taking ONLY the information as presented, does almost sound reasonable and matches your description: don't arbitrarily stop people attending, you naughty US conference, or we will retaliate:

> The federation called on all Chinese computer scientists to boycott

An overreaction? Was the NeurIPS refusal an overreaction (or overzealous)? In the current climate everybody is looking for ways they've been slighted and to which they can overreact. And both sides involved are looking over their shoulder in case Beloved Leader takes offence.

But whether either side's behaviour is an overreaction or not depends upon knowledge of what the “Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons” (SDNs) list actually contains (i.e. do the "entities" listed *really* block any significant number of Chinese attending? Does it block *any* of them?) and the full extent of the sanctions that being on the SDN actually authorises. The lazy person's quick reference isn't useful and cross-referencing all the entities is a job for an investigative reporter to report on. Oh, and let us not ignore that the current US administration is not going to be averse to weaponising the SDN (look what it did to one of its own); have they? Yet?

What we *do* get is a reminder that Chinese presentations have occured before (not really news to anyone, so - just a reminder!) and that not all conference presentations are whitewashed (again, not news). Although conference presentations *can* be unflattering, presentations are *also* used, by all sides, to boast about how fantastic their capabilities are. These aren't particularly useful or interesting presentations to attend, like any marketing guff, but not sending any delegates (by dropping string hints that delegates should not go) means losing those as well. Which neither side's leadership is fond of losing.

BUT then we leap to a conclusion I'm not totally convinced by (and AC is obviously not convinced by):

> CCF clearly doesn’t want presentations of that sort at NeurIPS

which is "backed up by" the Manus story - although that is about actual assets leaving China, to go under US control, and we know that anything going the other way is treated with similar ire by the US, so that is your day-to-day tit-for-tat between the two countries: nothing out of the ordinary. The only immediate link to the NeurIPS story being "AI", by which criterion you can link pretty much any two stories about China/US - or even just any two Register articles - these days: "AI" seems to be mentioned in pretty much everything! A direct comparison between the Manus and NeurIPS stories would hold weight if there was a claim that Beijing was concerned over their speakers defecting (i.e. losing assets to the West).

Does either side come out smelling like roses?

Do we even gave enough information presented in TFA to draw a solid conclusion either way?

[Alan Brown]

Re: Wrong headline

> NeurIPS therefore believes it can’t accept submissions from any SDN or affiliates

I get the impression they're telegraphing that the USA government has already started leaning on them - hard

[Pascal Monett]

Hey Xi-Ping, got a problem ?

Just declare your AI scientists as a National Security asset, forbidden to leave the country.

Problem solved, right ?

Or are you, all of a sudden, a bit respectful of human rights ? Nah, that can't be true.

[Ken G]

What can they do about it?

It's not like China is a one-party authoritarian dictatorship, is it?

Oh!

[Like a badger]

Re: What can they do about it?

What, like another leading country in the AI field?

[Bebu sa Ware]

Seems a bit retrograde…

but I suppose the US is currently rapidly walking backwards up its own arse.

I cannot imagine any possible reason why you wouldn't want to listen to, or prevent a technical presentation just because his or her nation has managed to seriously get on tits of your nation or more particularly the tits of your leader.†

The general idea is to listen to anything your adversaries have to say but as far as possible remaining silent yourself. I suppose that is transposed for Americans.

I am afraid even if this conference were to be hosted by an Australian domiciled organisation these US restrictions would still apply - US extra·territoriality is both wondrous and wonderfully self serving.

_{† In the case of the Orange git, these tits aren't entirely metaphorical, if you have noticed.}

[spotburst]

Re: Seems a bit retrograde…

>> if this conference were to be hosted by an Australian domiciled organisation these US restrictions would still apply

Perhaps then...Greenland!

[amanfromMars 1]

Leading IT and AI aint Rocket Science but it is a Cheap Chic Crippling Expensive FOMO Conundrum

China, which the West has consistently claimed to be guilty of filching and phishing for foreign and alien talent either based or home-grown and developed abroad, surely only has to reward any presumably highly valued and therefore, quite coincidentally, also extremely valuable and coveted prize talent/renegade rogue assets as appropriately as the West may appear to do in order to surprisingly as easily attract everything they might imagine is missing for all of their needs and feeds and seeds from anywhere out there elsewhere.

A fisful of dollars is no different from a pocketful of yuan whenever both have very similar majical power to enthrall and enable, capture and corrupt, free and enlighten ‽ .

[Alan Brown]

Re: Leading IT and AI aint Rocket Science but it is a Cheap Chic Crippling Expensive FOMO Conundrum

China, which the USA has repeatedly accused of doing that which it's done since its creation (and to a far greater extent than China has ever done)

There, FTFY

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-industrial-espionage-started-americas-cotton-revolution-180967608/

It hasn't stopped btw. I watched a friend's invention get stolen and patented by a USA company in the 1990s