我的征尘是星辰大海。。。
The dirt and dust from my pilgrimage forms oceans of stars...
-------当记忆的篇章变得零碎，当追忆的图片变得模糊，我们只能求助于数字存储的永恒的回忆
作者:黄教授
手机视频列表
驳斥AI赛道的速胜幻想
视频
音频
原始脚本
博赤 ai 赛道速胜幻想，起点神话与决战式胜负观均站不住脚。 一、速胜论的两大心理根源，决战决胜执念，起点恐慌焦虑。 当下国内 AI 行业滋生急躁形态，催生速胜论调，本质来自两套不切实际的预判逻辑。 第一种是战役决胜思维。 不少从业者默认 ai 竞争如同古代会战，城池攻防，只要做出一款对标 GPT 的头部大模型，拿下一次榜单第一，打赢一场技术比拼。 就能一举抹平数年积累差距，实现全面反超。 如同抗战初期部分人幻想打赢一两场大型会战就能驱逐外敌，认定单一决定性事件可以敲定整场博弈的最终结局。 第二种是起点断崖恐慌，行业长期弥漫一种焦虑预判，通用人工智能起点近在咫尺，一旦海外顶尖模型突破自我迭代闭环。 依靠模型训练模型的指数级飞轮，能力会瞬间爆炸式跃升，届时我方将被永久甩开，再也无力追赶。 这两种想法相辅相成。 一边盼着自己速胜翻盘，一边怕对手起点爆发，彻底拉开鸿沟。 两种极端情绪共同催生浮躁冒进的行业风气。 但放在真实技术发展规律里。 无论是一战定输赢的决战思维，还是起点即指数碾压的科幻式推演，全部存在底层逻辑硬伤，也是速胜论无法成立的核心症结。 二、第一重驳斥，不存在单一模型，单场比拼决定全局胜负。 一、 AI 是完整产业体系对抗。 绝非单一模型的擂台比试中，美 ai 比拼从来不是两款模型的一对一打分对决，而是算力硬件、芯片封装、训练框架。 标注数据、工程质控、落地场景、电力基建、人才梯队全链条的体系较量。 哪怕某一天我们推出一款跑分接近 GPT 的基础大模型。 也不等于整体产业实力持平。 对方配套成熟的 CUDA 软件生态、千万级严谨工程标注库、多年打磨的代码自检质信体系。 私有化企业部署方案都是环环相扣的积累。 就像一支军队，哪怕打赢一场局部战役，敌方完整的兵工厂、后勤补给、军官培养体系依然完好。 不可能仅凭一场胜仗终结整场持久战。 一款亮眼模型只是链条里的一环，弥补整条产业链的时差需要漫长、分布、逐层的打磨。 没有一招定乾坤的捷径。 二、能力的稳定可复现远比纸面胜负重要。 短期跑分胜利毫无长期价值，速胜导向下。 很多团队把榜单分数当成唯一胜负标尺，为冲高分数扭曲训练奖惩规则，答错、空答收益一致，模型养成无把握也强行输出答案。 看似卷面好看，落地工程频繁爆出低级 bug 这种靠蒙题填充式回复换来的短期领先，是虚胖的假性优势。 真正的硬实力，是划定能力边界后百分百稳定输出。 是复杂场景下低错误率、高可靠度。 短期跑分输赢只是瞬时快照，无法代表长期落地能力。 指望靠一次榜单胜利完成追赶。 本身就是本末倒置。 三、市场分层决定顶尖模型从来不是胜负核心主战场，绝大多数市场需求集中在轻量化脚本。 基础数据分析、自动化工具这类中等难度任务。 顶尖超复杂工程模型对应的客户群体体量很小。 即便海外顶尖模型在硬核研发场景独占鳌头。 我们完全可以牢牢稳住大众刚需基本盘，依靠评价稳定的基础 AI 工具，收获持续现金流与海量本土时间数据。 就算顶尖赛道短期追不上。 基础盘的扎实增长依然能稳步缩小整体产业差距。 胜负从来不由尖端单一赛道定义。 三，第二重驳斥，基点自我迭代飞轮存在硬性天花板。 指数爆发不可能凭空到来，市场恐惧的起点核心逻辑是模型成熟后自主训练下一代，一代更比一代强，能力无上限，指数暴涨。 拉开无法追赶的鸿沟。 这套设想忽略了大模型能力的根本来源，数据，这是它最致命的漏洞。 一、模型能力无法凭空自我孕育，提升的根基永远是增量新数据，套用认知规律，正确的能力、推理意识无法凭空产生，既不能完全依赖就有书本式存量互联网数据。 也不能仅凭上代模型自我推演，凭空升级。 初代互联网公开文本、代码、论文这类原始高质量存量数据，早已被头部模型反复挖掘榨干。 可复用的原始增量已经极少，想要下一代模型实力超越上代，必须输入全新、高质量、未被使用过的增量数据，要么是现实产业落地产生的真实实践交互数据。 要么是人类精细标注的专业场景素材，要么是多模态真实工况采集信息。 上代模型自我生成的伪数据天然存在偏见、逻辑漏洞。 事实错误。 如果不加大量人工筛选校验，拿它训练下一代，只会把缺陷一代代放大，反而拖累模型水平。 二。 自我迭代不是零成本瞬时跳转，每一代升级都要消耗大量时间、算力、人力筛选，不存在模型一键生成更强后代的捷径。 就算启用模型辅助训练，完整流程依旧厚重繁琐。 第一步，上代模型产出海量生成内容。 第二步，大量人力、算力做真伪校验。 错误剔除，质量分级。 第三步，调配大规模算力集群，完成新一轮长周期训练调参。 第四步，全场景测试验证稳定性，修正对齐偏差。 整套流程每一轮都要数月乃至更久周期，人力、电力、算力成本居高不下。 所谓指数级迭代，仅仅是小幅提速迭代节奏，完全做不到跳过时间成本瞬间跃迁。 硬件物理瓶颈还会进一步压制提速空间。 NVL 七二等高阶机柜受散热、同缆互联、电力负荷约束，算力扩容边际成本暴涨，算力供给本身就无法无限制放大。 进一步锁死迭代速度上限。 三， agi 完备自我遗传进化的节点上极其遥远，当下所有大模型依旧是统计拟合工具。 没有自主认知、目标规划、缺陷自查的原生意识，完全达不到遗传优势能力、定向改良短板的进化水准。 他没办法自主判断自身哪里薄弱。 自主设计改良训练方案，自主采集针对性增量数据。 现在的迭代依旧高度依赖人类工程师全程主导设计、调参、标注、校验。 人类才是迭代的核心掌舵人，短时间内不可能出现脱离人力、自主正向循环进化的成熟 AGI 基点断崖式碾压的前提条件完全不成立。 四，速胜论双重危害。 对内浮躁内耗，对外误判博弈节奏。 一，对内资源错配，放弃扎实基础积累，一心追求速胜。 紧盯顶尖对标，企业会把绝大多数资金、算力、人才砸向高难度、尖端赛道，轻视轻量化基础场景、语法自检、置信校准、国产配套工具链这些基本功。 本该稳稳守住的大众市场，因为细节疏漏流失信任，基本功长期缺位，即便偶尔做出高分模型，落地稳定性短板也会持续暴露。 看似前进，实则根基虚空。 二、放大不必要的起点焦虑，扰乱长期规划，过度渲染起点将至，对手即将一骑绝尘。 容易催生两种极端操作，要么不计成本疯狂烧钱堆算力硬冲尖端，现金流承压风险剧增。 要么悲观躺平。 放弃自主研发，依附海外生态。 两种选择都背离持久战稳健追赶的正确路线。 反观现实，对手增速早已放缓。 电力并网周期漫长，资本上市兑现压力加大，硬件物理瓶颈显现，双方迭代速度差距持续收窄，我们匀速稳步追赶。 差距不会被动无限拉大，完全没有恐慌的必要。 结语，无论是一款模型定输赢的决战幻想，还是起点到来指数碾压的恐慌预判。 共同构成了 AI 领域的速胜论，二者都严重脱离技术与产业客观规律。 这场中美人工智能博弈是十年尺度的体系持久战。 没有一战翻盘的奇迹，没有瞬时跃迁的起点捷径。 放弃速胜浮躁形态，不幻想一蹴而就，踏踏实实夯实能力圈内的可靠性，积累增量时间数据，分层阶梯迭代，依托庞大内需市场稳步回血成长，才是缩小差距、长期突围唯一可行的道路。 战略从容不惧长期比拼，战术审慎正视现实差距。 戒骄务实，时间自会回馈稳步沉淀的耕耘。
修正脚本
驳斥 AI 赛道速胜幻想，奇点神话与决战式胜负观均站不住脚。 一、速胜论的两大心理根源，决战决胜执念，奇点恐慌焦虑。 当下国内 AI 行业滋生急躁心态，催生速胜论调，本质来自两套不切实际的预判逻辑。 第一种是战役决胜思维。 不少从业者默认 ai 竞争如同古代会战，城池攻防，只要做出一款对标 GPT 的头部大模型，拿下一次榜单第一，打赢一场技术比拼。 就能一举抹平数年积累差距，实现全面反超。 如同抗战初期部分人幻想打赢一两场大型会战就能驱逐外敌，认定单一决定性事件可以敲定整场博弈的最终结局。 第二种是奇点断崖恐慌，行业长期弥漫一种焦虑预判，通用人工智能奇点近在咫尺，一旦海外顶尖模型突破自我迭代闭环。 依靠模型训练模型的指数级飞轮，能力会瞬间爆炸式跃升，届时我方将被永久甩开，再也无力追赶。 这两种想法相辅相成。 一边盼着自己速胜翻盘，一边怕对手奇点爆发，彻底拉开鸿沟。 两种极端情绪共同催生浮躁冒进的行业风气。 但放在真实技术发展规律里。 无论是一战定输赢的决战思维，还是奇点即指数碾压的科幻式推演，全部存在底层逻辑硬伤，也是速胜论无法成立的核心症结。 二、第一重驳斥，不存在单一模型，单场比拼决定全局胜负。 一、 AI 是完整产业体系对抗。 绝非单一模型的擂台比试，中美 AI 比拼从来不是两款模型的一对一打分对决，而是算力硬件、芯片封装、训练框架、标注数据、工程质控、落地场景、电力基建、人才梯队全链条的体系较量。 哪怕某一天我们推出一款跑分接近 GPT 的基础大模型。 也不等于整体产业实力持平。 对方配套成熟的 CUDA 软件生态、千万级严谨工程标注库、多年打磨的代码自检置信体系。 私有化企业部署方案都是环环相扣的积累。 就像一支军队，哪怕打赢一场局部战役，敌方完整的兵工厂、后勤补给、军官培养体系依然完好。 不可能仅凭一场胜仗终结整场持久战。 一款亮眼模型只是链条里的一环，弥补整条产业链的代差需要漫长、分步、逐层的打磨。 没有一招定乾坤的捷径。 二、能力的稳定可复现远比纸面胜负重要。 短期跑分胜利毫无长期价值，速胜导向下。 很多团队把榜单分数当成唯一胜负标尺，为冲高分数扭曲训练奖惩规则，答错、空答收益一致，模型养成无把握也强行输出答案。 看似卷面好看，落地工程频繁爆出低级 bug，这种靠蒙题填充式回复换来的短期领先，是虚胖的假性优势。 真正的硬实力，是划定能力边界后百分百稳定输出。 是复杂场景下低错误率、高可靠度。 短期跑分输赢只是瞬时快照，无法代表长期落地能力。 指望靠一次榜单胜利完成追赶。 本身就是本末倒置。 三、市场分层决定顶尖模型从来不是胜负核心主战场，绝大多数市场需求集中在轻量化脚本。 基础数据分析、自动化工具这类中等难度任务。 顶尖超复杂工程模型对应的客户群体体量很小。 即便海外顶尖模型在硬核研发场景独占鳌头。 我们完全可以牢牢稳住大众刚需基本盘，依靠性能稳定的基础 AI 工具，收获持续现金流与海量本土实践数据。 就算顶尖赛道短期追不上。 基础盘的扎实增长依然能稳步缩小整体产业差距。 胜负从来不由尖端单一赛道定义。 三、第二重驳斥，奇点自我迭代飞轮存在硬性天花板。 指数爆发不可能凭空到来，市场恐惧的奇点核心逻辑是模型成熟后自主训练下一代，一代更比一代强，能力无上限，指数暴涨。 拉开无法追赶的鸿沟。 这套设想忽略了大模型能力的根本来源，数据，这是它最致命的漏洞。 一、模型能力无法凭空自我孕育，提升的根基永远是增量新数据，套用认知规律，正确的能力、推理意识无法凭空产生，既不能完全依赖已有书本式存量互联网数据。 也不能仅凭上代模型自我推演，凭空升级。 初代互联网公开文本、代码、论文这类原始高质量存量数据，早已被头部模型反复挖掘榨干。 可复用的原始增量已经极少，想要下一代模型实力超越上代，必须输入全新、高质量、未被使用过的增量数据，要么是现实产业落地产生的真实实践交互数据，要么是人类精细标注的专业场景素材，要么是多模态真实工况采集信息。 上代模型自我生成的伪数据天然存在偏见、逻辑漏洞、事实错误。 如果不加大量人工筛选校验，拿它训练下一代，只会把缺陷一代代放大，反而拖累模型水平。 二、自我迭代不是零成本瞬时跳转，每一代升级都要消耗大量时间、算力、人力筛选，不存在模型一键生成更强后代的捷径。 就算启用模型辅助训练，完整流程依旧厚重繁琐。 第一步，上代模型产出海量生成内容。 第二步，大量人力、算力做真伪校验。 错误剔除，质量分级。 第三步，调配大规模算力集群，完成新一轮长周期训练调参。 第四步，全场景测试验证稳定性，修正对齐偏差。 整套流程每一轮都要数月乃至更久周期，人力、电力、算力成本居高不下。 所谓指数级迭代，仅仅是小幅提速迭代节奏，完全做不到跳过时间成本瞬间跃迁。 硬件物理瓶颈还会进一步压制提速空间。 NVL 七二等高阶机柜受散热、同缆互联、电力负荷约束，算力扩容边际成本暴涨，算力供给本身就无法无限制放大。 进一步锁死迭代速度上限。 三、 AGI 完备自我遗传进化的节点极其遥远，当下所有大模型依旧是统计拟合工具。 没有自主认知、目标规划、缺陷自查的原生意识，完全达不到遗传优势能力、定向改良短板的进化水准。 它没办法自主判断自身哪里薄弱。 自主设计改良训练方案，自主采集针对性增量数据。 现在的迭代依旧高度依赖人类工程师全程主导设计、调参、标注、校验。 人类才是迭代的核心掌舵人，短时间内不可能出现脱离人力、自主正向循环进化的成熟 AGI，奇点断崖式碾压的前提条件完全不成立。 四、速胜论双重危害。 对内浮躁内耗，对外误判博弈节奏。 一、对内资源错配，放弃扎实基础积累，一心追求速胜。 紧盯顶尖对标，企业会把绝大多数资金、算力、人才砸向高难度、尖端赛道，轻视轻量化基础场景、语法自检、置信校准、国产配套工具链这些基本功。 本该稳稳守住的大众市场，因为细节疏漏流失信任，基本功长期缺位，即便偶尔做出高分模型，落地稳定性短板也会持续暴露。 看似前进，实则根基虚空。 二、放大不必要的奇点焦虑，扰乱长期规划，过度渲染奇点将至，对手即将一骑绝尘。 容易催生两种极端操作，要么不计成本疯狂烧钱堆算力硬冲尖端，现金流承压风险剧增。 要么悲观躺平。 放弃自主研发，依附海外生态。 两种选择都背离持久战稳健追赶的正确路线。 反观现实，对手增速早已放缓。 电力并网周期漫长，资本上市兑现压力加大，硬件物理瓶颈显现，双方迭代速度差距持续收窄，我们匀速稳步追赶。 差距不会被动无限拉大，完全没有恐慌的必要。 结语，无论是一款模型定输赢的决战幻想，还是奇点到来指数碾压的恐慌预判。 共同构成了 AI 领域的速胜论，二者都严重脱离技术与产业客观规律。 这场中美人工智能博弈是十年尺度的体系持久战。 没有一战翻盘的奇迹，没有瞬时跃迁的奇点捷径。 放弃速胜浮躁心态，不幻想一蹴而就，踏踏实实夯实能力圈内的可靠性，积累增量实践数据，分层阶梯迭代，依托庞大内需市场稳步回血成长，才是缩小差距、长期突围唯一可行的道路。 战略从容不惧长期比拼，战术审慎正视现实差距。 戒骄务实，时间自会回馈稳步沉淀的耕耘。
英文翻译
Refuting the Illusion of Quick Victory in the AI Track: Neither the Singularity Myth nor the Decisive-Battle Mindset Holds Water I. Two Psychological Roots of the Quick-Victory Theory: The Obsession with Decisive Battles and the Anxiety of Singularity Panic The current impatience in China's domestic AI industry, which has given rise to the quick-victory rhetoric, stems essentially from two sets of unrealistic predictive logics. The first is the mindset of a decisive campaign. Many practitioners instinctively assume that AI competition is akin to ancient battles or city sieges—that by creating a head-to-head foundation model comparable to GPT, achieving first place on a leaderboard, or winning a single technical contest, they can instantly erase years of accumulated gaps and achieve a comprehensive overtake. This is similar to how some people during the early days of the War of Resistance Against Japan fantasized that winning one or two large-scale battles would drive out foreign invaders, believing that a single decisive event could determine the final outcome of the entire conflict. The second is the panic of a singularity cliff. A persistent anxious prediction looms over the industry: the singularity of general artificial intelligence is imminent. Once overseas cutting-edge models break through the self-iterative closed loop—relying on the exponential flywheel of models training models—their capabilities will explode instantaneously, leaving us permanently left behind, never able to catch up. These two ideas complement each other. On one hand, people hope for a quick victory to turn the tables; on the other, they fear that opponents will trigger a singularity that widens the gap completely. These two extreme emotions jointly breed a rash and aggressive industry climate. But when examined against the actual laws of technological development, both the decisive-battle mindset that a single contest determines victory or defeat and the sci-fi-style extrapolation that the singularity equals exponential crushing contain fundamental logical flaws—the core reason why the quick-victory theory cannot stand. II. First Refutation: No Single Model or Single Contest Determines the Overall Outcome 1. AI is a confrontation of complete industrial ecosystems, not a mere arena match of individual models. The Sino-U.S. AI competition has never been a one-on-one score comparison between two models. It is a systemic contest across the entire chain: computing hardware, chip packaging, training frameworks, labeled data, engineering quality control, application scenarios, power infrastructure, and talent pipelines. Even if one day we launch a foundation model with benchmark scores close to GPT, this does not mean our overall industrial strength is on par. The counterpart’s mature CUDA software ecosystem, millions-level rigorous engineering annotation libraries, years of polished code self-check confidence systems, and private enterprise deployment solutions are all interlocking accumulations. Like an army, even if it wins a local battle, the enemy’s complete arsenal, logistics supply, and officer training system remain intact. No single battle can end an entire protracted war. A dazzling model is just one link in the chain; closing the gap across the entire industrial chain requires long, step-by-step, layer-by-layer refinement. There is no shortcut to a single decisive move. 2. The stability and reproducibility of capabilities are far more important than superficial contest results. Short-term leaderboard victories hold no long-term value. Under the quick-victory mindset, many teams treat benchmark scores as the only measure of success. To inflate scores, they distort training reward rules—making the payoff for wrong answers and empty responses the same, forcing the model to output answers even when it is uncertain. This may look good on paper, but in real-world deployment, frequent low-level bugs emerge. This short-term lead, achieved through guesswork and filler responses, is a bloated false advantage. True hard power means 100% stable output within a defined capability boundary—low error rates and high reliability in complex scenarios. Short-term leaderboard wins are just snapshots; they don’t represent long-term deployment capability. Expecting to catch up through a single leaderboard victory is putting the cart before the horse. 3. Market segmentation determines that top-tier models are never the core battlefield for victory or defeat. The vast majority of market demand is concentrated in lightweight scripting, basic data analysis, automation tools, and other medium-difficulty tasks. The customer base for top-tier ultra-complex engineering models is very small. Even if overseas cutting-edge models dominate in hardcore R&D scenarios, we can firmly hold onto the basic mass-demand market by relying on stable, foundational AI tools. This will yield continuous cash flow and abundant local practical data. Even if we cannot catch up in the top-tier track in the short term, solid growth in the foundational base can steadily narrow the overall industrial gap. Victory or defeat is never defined by a single cutting-edge track alone. III. Second Refutation: The Singularity Self-Iteration Flywheel Has Hard Ceilings Exponential explosion cannot come out of thin air. The core logic of the singularity that the market fears is: once a model matures, it trains the next generation autonomously, each generation stronger than the last, with no upper limit on capability and exponential growth, creating an uncatchable gap. This vision ignores the fundamental source of large model capabilities—data. This is its most fatal flaw. 1. Model capabilities cannot be self-generated out of nothing. The foundation for improvement is always incremental new data. According to cognitive laws, correct capabilities and reasoning awareness cannot arise from nothing. They cannot rely solely on existing book-like stock data from the internet, nor can they upgrade out of thin air through the self-deduction of previous models. The original high-quality stock data—public text, code, papers from the early internet—has already been thoroughly mined and exhausted by top models. Very little reusable original incremental data remains. For the next-generation model to surpass its predecessor, it must be fed entirely new, high-quality, unused incremental data. This can only come from real-world practical interaction data generated by industrial deployment, professionally annotated domain-specific materials by humans, or multi-modal real-condition collected information. The pseudo-data self-generated by previous models inherently contains biases, logical flaws, and factual errors. Without extensive human screening and validation, using such data to train the next generation will only amplify defects generation after generation, dragging down model performance instead. 2. Self-iteration is not a zero-cost, instantaneous leap. Each generation upgrade consumes significant time, computing power, and human labor for screening. There is no shortcut where a model generates a stronger descendant with one click. Even with model-assisted training, the entire process remains heavy and cumbersome. Step one: the previous-generation model produces massive generated content. Step two: large amounts of human effort and computing power are used to verify authenticity, remove errors, and grade quality. Step three: large-scale computing clusters are deployed for a new round of long-cycle training and parameter tuning. Step four: full-scenario testing verifies stability and corrects alignment deviations. Each cycle takes months or longer, with high costs in manpower, electricity, and computing power. The so-called exponential iteration only slightly accelerates the iteration rhythm; it cannot skip time costs for instantaneous jumps. Hardware physical bottlenecks further suppress the room for acceleration. High-end racks like NVL72 are constrained by heat dissipation, cable interconnections, and power load, causing marginal costs of computing expansion to skyrocket. Computing power supply itself cannot be infinitely enlarged, further locking the upper limit of iteration speed. 3. The node for AGI’s complete self-genetic evolution is extremely far off. All current large models remain statistical fitting tools. They have no autonomous cognition, goal planning, or native awareness of self-deficiencies. They are far from reaching an evolutionary level where they can inherit advantageous capabilities and autonomously improve weaknesses. They cannot independently judge where they are weak, design targeted training improvements, or collect targeted incremental data. Current iteration still heavily relies on human engineers to lead the entire process—design, tuning, labeling, validation. Humans remain the core helmsmen of iteration. In the short term, it is impossible to see a mature AGI that evolves autonomously without human intervention. The prerequisite for a singularity cliff-style crushing does not exist. IV. Dual Harms of the Quick-Victory Theory: Internal Impatience and Waste, External Misjudgment of the Game’s Rhythm 1. Internally, misallocation of resources: abandoning solid foundational accumulation in pursuit of quick victory. By fixating on top-tier benchmarks, companies channel the majority of funds, computing power, and talent into high-difficulty, cutting-edge tracks, while neglecting basic skills: lightweight scenarios, grammar self-check, confidence calibration, domestic supporting toolchains. The mass market that should be solidly defended loses trust due to detail gaps. With long-term neglect of fundamentals, even if an occasional high-score model emerges, its deployment stability weaknesses will keep surfacing. It may seem like progress, but the foundation is hollow. 2. Exaggerating unnecessary singularity anxiety, disrupting long-term planning. Over-hyping that the singularity is imminent and the opponent is about to pull far ahead easily triggers two extreme responses: either burning money recklessly to pile computing power and charge at the cutting edge, drastically increasing cash flow risk; or falling into pessimistic inaction, abandoning independent R&D, and relying on overseas ecosystems. Both choices deviate from the correct path of steady catch-up in a protracted war. In reality, the opponent’s growth rate has already slowed. Power grid integration cycles are long, capital market listing pressures mount, hardware physical bottlenecks emerge, and the iteration speed gap between both sides continues to narrow. Our steady, measured pursuit means the gap will not passively widen indefinitely. There is no need for panic. Conclusion: Whether it is the fantasy of a single model deciding victory or defeat, or the panicked prediction of the singularity bringing exponential crushing, both constitute the quick-victory theory in the AI field. Both seriously deviate from the objective laws of technology and industry. This Sino-U.S. AI competition is a decade-scale systemic protracted war. There is no miracle of a single battle turning the tables, no shortcut of instantaneous singularity leap. Abandon the impatient quick-victory mindset; stop fantasizing about overnight success. Steadfastly consolidate reliability within our capability circle, accumulate incremental practical data, iterate layer by layer based on segmentation, and rely on the vast domestic demand market to steadily regain strength and grow. This is the only viable path to narrowing the gap and achieving long-term breakthrough. Strategically, remain calm and unafraid of long-term competition; tactically, be cautious and face the actual gap. Guard against pride, be pragmatic, and time will reward the steady efforts of accumulation.
back to top