Europe has consistently been the largest publisher of AI papers — 28% of AI papers on Scopus in 2017 originated in Europe. Meanwhile, the number of papers published in China increased 150% between 2007 and 2017. This is despite the spike and drop in Chinese papers around 2008.
(I’d post the graphs here, but I don’t think images can be inserted into comments.)
My lived experience is that most of the papers I care about (even excluding safety-related papers) come from the US / UK. There are lots of reasons that both of these could be true, but for the sake of improving AGI-related governance, I think my lived experience is a much better measure of the thing we actually care about (which is something like “which region does good AGI-related thinking”).
I was excluding governance papers, because it seems like the relevant question is “will AI development happen in Europe or elsewhere”, and governance papers provide ~no evidence for or against that.
This strikes me as an isolated example of Europe leading on one metric. I plan to write something more comprehensive, but I think just seeing this statistic could create a wrong impression for some people.
I think this accusation is uncalled for. There is more statistics in the report and I linked to it, including things like citation impact. But a comprehensive overview of European AI research is, of course, very welcome.
Maybe I misunderstood. What’s the point of highlighting only this statistic? It does not seem very representative of the report you’re linking to or the overall claim this statistic might support if looked at in isolation.
EDIT: I didn’t mean to imply intent on your part. Apologies for the unclear language. Edited original comment as well.
For what it’s worth, according to Artificial Intelligence Index published in 2018:
(I’d post the graphs here, but I don’t think images can be inserted into comments.)
My lived experience is that most of the papers I care about (even excluding safety-related papers) come from the US / UK. There are lots of reasons that both of these could be true, but for the sake of improving AGI-related governance, I think my lived experience is a much better measure of the thing we actually care about (which is something like “which region does good AGI-related thinking”).
Are you mainly referring to technical papers, or does your statement consider work from folks at FHI, CSER, CFI, etc.?
I was excluding governance papers, because it seems like the relevant question is “will AI development happen in Europe or elsewhere”, and governance papers provide ~no evidence for or against that.
You can post an image using standard markdown syntax:
This strikes me as an isolated example of Europe leading on one metric. I plan to write something more comprehensive, but I think just seeing this statistic could create a wrong impression for some people.
(edited to remove accusatory tone)
I think this accusation is uncalled for. There is more statistics in the report and I linked to it, including things like citation impact. But a comprehensive overview of European AI research is, of course, very welcome.
Maybe I misunderstood. What’s the point of highlighting only this statistic? It does not seem very representative of the report you’re linking to or the overall claim this statistic might support if looked at in isolation.
EDIT: I didn’t mean to imply intent on your part. Apologies for the unclear language. Edited original comment as well.
I think they can (or, at least, it used to be possible to do so). I’ve done so here and here for example.