Artificial intelligence: eminently political… – Paris Côte d’Azur

– AI, ubiquitous but poorly identified (Ifop)…

The note and the report provide a number of insights (excerpts):

  • over the past 30 years, the leading countries in terms of patent production are the United States (30%), China (26%), Japan (12%), South Korea (6%), Germany (5%), the United Kingdom (2.5%), France (2.4%) and Canada (1.9%). The United States and Asian powers alone account for nearly three-quarters of the AI ​​innovation market. With more than half of the global market share, the United States and China assert their dominance.
  • According to the Tortoise Global AI Index 2021, which rates nations based on their level of investment, innovation and implementation of artificial intelligence, the United States and China retain their top two spots. Canada takes 4th place. It ranks first in government strategy (ahead of China) and 6th in business strategy. France and Germany for their part descend in the overall ranking to reach 9th and 10th places, just after the Netherlands. However, France has risen to 5th place in the world in terms of government strategy, ahead of the United States and Germany, for example.
  • in April 2021, the European Union published its new coordinated plan for artificial intelligence between the European Commission and the Member States. It builds on the first coordinated AI plan of 201. The objectives include accelerating investments and aligning AI policy to eliminate fragmentation. However, in a field where investment costs are so colossal, French and European decision-makers are subject to “path dependence”: their future strategic choices are constrained by past choices that commit them for the long term. They must therefore have a detailed knowledge of the comparative advantages of their countries and of competing countries in areas relevant to AI in order to target specific investments enabling them to provide the quantitative effort necessary to increase their market share in the fields of AI. sectors deemed key.

Although ranked 7th in number of product patents, French private players are struggling to compete with American, Chinese or even German players, as evidenced by the absence of national private players in the world’s top 20 largest producers of AI patents. However, France is the leader in European public innovation with six research organizations present in the top 10 of European public actors.

France is characterized by strong public research in the field of AI. Also, the public decision-maker must rely on this research to create the conditions for a technology transfer to players closer to the markets.

The articulation between public and private actors in particular is specific to each region of the world and to each country. The patterns of interaction encountered are of a great variety. This is even more evident if we look at the link between the national dominant firms and the specializations of the countries. However, the organization of AI innovation is a crucial element that must drive public policy choices.

The diversity of national innovation systems invites us to remain circumspect with regard to policies supporting artificial intelligence, which would consist in imitating the policies implemented in a benchmark country. On the contrary, such diversity implies that these policies cannot operate above ground, without relying on key national players, and by exploiting the complementarities between the most promising scientific, technological and functional fields for the country.

To build its comparative advantages, Europe must therefore consider building a European model of innovation in the field of AI. However, the differences observed, in particular between the German and French innovation systems, call into question the feasibility and coherence of a European model. Would such a system be efficient? How could it strengthen the specializations of key European players, public and private? It is up to public decision-makers to answer these questions, to imagine innovative organizations, it being now recognized that being excluded from future developments in artificial intelligence would be synonymous with a loss of influence at the international level and future economic autonomy.

Companies must therefore adjust their economic model, make the necessary additional investments, and adapt their technical skills and human capital. For their part, the public authorities must adjust the regulations in force, and ensure a training offer that accompanies the development of AI, by investing in scientific and technological infrastructures. CQFD!

We want to say thanks to the writer of this article for this outstanding web content

Artificial intelligence: eminently political… – Paris Côte d’Azur

You can view our social media profiles here , as well as other pages related to them here.