When I first lived in China nearly a decade ago, I was stunned by the dizzying scale and sophistication of its digital infrastructure. So when a driverless taxi ferried me through Shanghai last September (no safety supervisor), it felt almost routine. Using omnipresent \u201ceverything\u201d apps (WeChat & Alipay) to connect with urban services, pay for street food, and build a modest following on Bilibili (9 followers and counting) was normal. Catching the hotel lift with a little autonomous robot was fun but unextraordinary.<\/p>\n
What did surprise me, however, was a trip to the newly built Shenzhen Science and Technology Museum. I expected a typical celebration of the march of progress. Instead, the exhibit framed recent AI advances through themes of national rejuvenation, social stability, and collective purpose. The contrast with Western narratives \u2013 which tend to foreground market innovation and risk \u2013 was striking.<\/p>\n
While China and the US-led West are racing to develop AI, they are moving in fundamentally different directions, guided by different stories about what technology is for.<\/p>\n
Cultural narratives make certain policy responses feel natural, or even inevitable. They shape adoption by determining who has authority to act, how policy gets written, and whether institutions move quickly or cautiously. In practice, this plays out through mission, market, and risk frames.<\/p>\n
Institutions respond to predictability, not hesitation.<\/p>\n
In 2022, a month before the public launch of ChatGPT, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy published the AI Bill of Rights<\/a>. Though non-binding, the document put emphasis on a risk-driven approach to innovation policy, anticipating potential rights infringements by automated systems. Two years later, the European Parliament passed the EU AI Act<\/a> \u2013 the first purpose-built, AI-specific legislation \u2013 codifying this risk framing into market entry requirements and economy-wide rights protections.<\/p>\n By positioning AI as a threat, risk-framing justifies the introduction of non-binding guidance like the AI Bill of Rights alongside binding constraints such as the EU AI Act.<\/p>\n