AI Future Post 2: When (and How) Collectivism Began to Take Shape

AI as a Mirror of a Society

AI Post 2: When (and How) Collectivism Began to Take Shape

The U.S.–China AI divide is often framed in political or economic terms, but these actually mirror each country’s deeper cultural identities.

The deeper reason is cultural—and it dates back over 2,000 years in China.

The book On China by Henry Kissinger is one of many in which he famously said, “American exceptionalism is missionary . . . China’s exceptionalism is cultural.”

Many might wonder when — and how — China’s culture, often described as collectivist (in contrast with America's individualist), began to develop, and how it continues to influence its AI strategy today.

When the first emperor, Qin Shi Huang, unified China in 221 BCE, he didn’t just conquer the territories of six kingdoms.

He named the newly unified country “China” and centralized power.

He replaced feudal fragmentation with a system in which officials were appointed on the basis of merit—not heredity—and the state maintained direct control over a vast population. And, of course, he built a “long and hard wall” known today as the Great Wall.

This centralized model has largely endured to the present day. However, power alone wasn’t sufficient; it needed a philosophy to unify and sustain its people.

It so happened that Confucian doctrine (Confucius: c. 551 – c. 479 BCE) provided the “soft social glue” that reinforced this centralized system, promoting ideas embraced by successive dynastic governments:

→ Order over chaos→ Duty over individuality→ Harmony over personal expression

Together, they helped shape a culture that has prioritized coordination, stability, and collective outcomes for more than 2,000 years.

Fast forward to today, and this cultural imprint is clearly visible in the daily lives of the Chinese people and in most major policy-making processes, including those related to artificial intelligence.

China:

• Large-scale deployment (facial recognition, public health, infrastructure)

• Top-down coordination

• Focus on practical outcomes

U.S.:

• Frontier innovation

• Decentralized experimentation

• Focus on breakthroughs (AGI, foundational models)

  
  

Neither model is inherently better—they’re different.

But here’s the more interesting question:

What if these approaches were combined instead of competing?

• U.S. innovation + China’s scalability

• Breakthroughs + real-world deployment

• Speed + coordination

  
  

Does techno-nationalism help or hinder innovation and technological progress in the U.S. or China when they act independently, even when they try to undermine one another? The answer is obvious.

So the real question isn’t who wins. Because in that case, we all lose.

However, no one has asked, let alone imagined, whether these two models can coexist—or even converge.

What would it mean for the world if the two AI superpowers combined their efforts to benefit everyone?

The benefits would include:

• The complementary strengths of U.S. innovation and China's scalability could drive balanced progress.

• Collaborative AI development could address shared issues like climate change, healthcare, economic inequality, standardized regulation, and a lot more.

• Diverse perspectives in combining approaches could lead to more comprehensive, robust, and adaptable AI solutions.

• This combination can accelerate solutions that benefit all humankind.

  
  

Because if they don’t, the future of AI might resemble a modern chariot race with no winners. In the end, humility, but not hubris, will sustain and even thrive for a country or individual.

Am I the only fool raving about idiotic nonsense?

Or what do you think about it?

The possibilities, even the feasibility of such collaborative approaches, will be explored later in this series, so stay tuned.

This is Post 2 in a series about How Culture Shapes the Future of AI.