this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2026
16 points (78.6% liked)

Technology

86847 readers
3332 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] leanleft@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 hour ago

i distilled this article

Summary of the article “How China gets better bang for its buck than America in AI” (Aug 3 2026)

  • U.S. AI spending is massive – Bloomberg Intelligence estimates U.S. data‑centre capital outlays could exceed $740 billion in 2026, with Nvidia alone negotiating a $250 billion financing deal for a $500 billion data‑centre run by OpenAI. Alphabet announced a $205 billion AI budget.

  • China spends far less – Chinese tech firms are projected to invest less than one‑tenth of the U.S. amount in data centres. Yet their models perform only slightly behind U.S. equivalents. For example:

    • K3 (Moonshot AI) scores ≈ 95 % of Anthropic’s Fable 5 on common benchmarks while being 70 % cheaper to run.
    • Alibaba’s newly released model ranks among the world’s best on certain metrics.
  • Why Chinese spending is efficient

    1. Lower input costs – Land, construction, equipment and labour are cheaper in China.
    2. Model distillation – Chinese labs often train models using outputs from expensive U.S. models, reducing the compute needed.
    3. Hidden spending – Some expenditures on high‑end chips are masked as “cost‑saving” techniques that make inferior hardware achieve higher performance (e.g., DeepSeek’s efficiency tricks).
  • Export restrictions limit Chinese capital use – U.S. bans on advanced AI chips (Nvidia designs, TSMC manufacturing) prevent China from buying the most powerful hardware.

    • Chinese firms are pushed toward domestic alternatives (Huawei, SMIC).
    • Sanctions also block access to cutting‑edge chip‑making equipment, forcing costly work‑arounds and capping production capacity.
  • Domestic demand constraints – Chinese enterprises spend < 10 % of what U.S. firms spend on IT, despite China’s GDP being two‑thirds of the U.S. (or a third larger in PPP terms). This throttles revenue prospects for AI providers, curbing their willingness to invest heavily.

  • Strategic focus differs – The Chinese Communist Party emphasizes diffusing AI across the economy, not pursuing a race toward artificial general intelligence (AGI). Fewer than ten Chinese firms target AGI, compared with dozens of U.S. players.

  • Investor attitudes – Chinese investors have historically punished over‑spending on AI, whereas U.S. investors once rewarded aggressive budgeting. This cultural difference keeps Chinese AI budgets modest.

  • Potential bottlenecks for China – Despite restraint, China may face compute shortages:

    • ByteDance experiences ten‑hour processing times for some videos.
    • Alibaba Cloud, Zhipu AI, and Moonshot’s K3 have long waiting lists or quickly sell out capacity.
    • Over‑restriction could stifle growth if AI services cannot meet user demand.

Overall takeaway: China achieves comparable AI performance to the U.S. while spending a fraction of the capital by leveraging cheaper resources, model‑distillation techniques, and a strategic focus on wide‑scale diffusion rather than raw computational power. However, export bans, limited domestic chip capacity, modest corporate demand, and cautious investors together create both an efficiency advantage and a risk of under‑provisioned infrastructure.

[–] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 10 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

The meat of the article is behind the paywall.

My theory is that

  1. China has better integration between academia and industry - I'm mostly basing this off how in the US the academia is chronically underinvested so that the private sector can get it's plunder of smart graduates, but when it comes to AI development you actually need academic knowledge of intelligence otherwise you're just approaching it like an engineering problem

  2. US companies are incentivized to spend more, the more broke they are the smarter they seem, so there isn't really any incentive to improve in smart ways because you can just rack up a bigger bill with your investors and keep the circular economy going.

Would love to know what the recipe says though.

[–] kboos1@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Being the pioneer means doing the heavy lifting and making mistakes. So makes sense, China can learn for others mistakes

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 40 minutes ago

That'd only make sense if this was a total investment thing, but it's not. America is investing at a higher rate yet China is getting more returns. Who started first is irrelevant here.

[–] kibblebits@quokk.au 1 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

China loves to steal tech.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 0 points 31 minutes ago (1 children)

Which is great. Intellectual property is innovation-stifling cancer. I'd certainly rather China have the tech to make all those EVs than leave the West to hoard it.

[–] kibblebits@quokk.au 1 points 9 minutes ago (1 children)

I don’t necessarily disagree, but you’re a trashy person stop talking to me mrdown

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 6 minutes ago

I'll never understand why people keep saying I'm Mrdown.

Edit: Oh it's not "people" it's just you. Still, why Mrdown in particular? Like what's the thought process here?

[–] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 12 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

Oh come on all of AI is built on stolen tech, you can't get mad at China for playing by the same rules as everyone else.

Less mad, more statement of fact

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 hours ago

I'm mad at China and at OpenAI, Anthropic, Facebook, Google, ...

[–] kibblebits@quokk.au 2 points 3 hours ago

I’m not mad?

[–] Miller@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

The problem with not doing the heavy lifting yourself and using derived technology and ideas is that in evolutionary terms you are not selecting for innovators. Down the road this approach becomes ingrained both philosophically and in reality as you let your own innovators wither on the vine.

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 1 points 53 minutes ago (1 children)

Yeah China's VERY good at reverse engineering stuff and playing catch up. Haven't really seen them take a clear lead in developing new technology in any field though.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 33 minutes ago

That's more due to the lack of new technology these days. AI aside most modern engineering is incremental improvements to existing technology—that's the innovation everyone is doing.