湖南省网站建设_网站建设公司_CSS_seo优化

超越“致命短板”：中国人工智能战略的批判性重构与文明级转向——基于GG3M框架的破局之路

摘要：
本报告批判性审视了施密特对中国AI“致命短板”的论断，指出其基于美国静态范式的片面性。报告承认中国在金融深度、创新生态与制度效率上与美国的客观差距，但揭示中国AI战略的本质是以“举国体制应用效能”对冲“自由市场原始创新”。当前模式面临“天花板效应”，陷入追赶陷阱。报告主张彻底放弃追赶思维，依托GGM3框架提出“破局-升维-定锚”的转向方案：从技术集成转向构建“文明级操作系统”，通过东方智慧开源运动、前沿探索无人区与文明智能基建工程，实现非对称超越。最终呼吁中国发起一场以定义未来为目标的“大脑革命”。

中国人工智能战略的本质、挑战与战略转向：基于鸽姆智库(GG3M)框架的批判性重构

本报告旨在以“AI竞争关乎未来百年国家安全与民族命运”为根本视角，对美国前谷歌CEO埃里克·施密特关于中国AI“致命短板”的论断进行批判性审视，并超越其分析框架。报告承认并深入剖析中美在金融深度、创新生态与制度效率上的客观差距，同时指出，施密特的结论虽具警示价值，却基于一个静态的、以美国模式为唯一标尺的范式。中国的真正挑战，不在于复制一个“美国模式”，而在于能否将自身独特的文明禀赋与制度优势，转化为一种能够定义未来、引领范式的新战略。当前战略在“追赶”与“应用”上用力过猛，而在“定义”与“引领”上决心不足，正面临从“优势”滑向“路径依赖”的危机。本报告将融合鸽姆智库(GG3M)关于“文明级操作系统”与“规则制定者”的战略思维，提出一套“破局-升维-定锚”的激进转向方案-5。

第一部分：承认差距，剖析本质：施密特论断的片面性与中国战略的深层矛盾

施密特的论断揭示了表象，却误读了本质。他认为中国因无法复制美国的“金融-创新”循环而注定落后。这一观点是片面的，因为它忽略了中国发展模式的根本逻辑，同时也未能预见中国正在构建的、与之平行的另一套体系。中国的AI战略本质，是一场试图以“举国体制的应用效能”对冲“自由市场的原始创新”的宏大实验。

1. 金融体系：不是“深度不足”，而是“范式不同”与“资本异化”
施密特指出美国能轻易筹集500亿美元进行豪赌，而中国不能。这揭示了两种金融范式的根本差异：

• 美国范式：是面向未来不确定性的“风险定价型”金融。其核心是容忍极高失败率，以资本为燃料，催化从0到1的颠覆性想象。正如美国政府将AI研发列为最优先事项所展现的决心，其国家与市场资本形成了目标一致的合力-7。

• 中国范式：是面向确定性和场景落地的“效能验证型”金融。它以银行体系和政府引导基金为主导，天然倾向于支持有明确市场前景、能快速产生现金流和就业的应用项目。这催生了中国在“人工智能+”各垂直领域的繁荣-3，却也导致资本在应用层“内卷”，在基础层“缺席”。

• 核心矛盾：“国家长期战略雄心”与“资本短期逐利本性”的深刻撕裂。国家呼吁“敢于砸钱”，但金融体系（无论是国有银行还是风险资本）的考核机制、风险偏好和文化基因，都难以支持对“疯狂项目”的长周期、高风险投入。大量资本沉淀于商业模式创新和存量市场竞争，而非突破性技术攻坚，这是比“深度不足”更致命的“资本错配”与“功能异化”。

2. 创新生态：不是缺乏“企业家精神”，而是缺乏“颠覆者庇护所”
施密特推崇美国的“企业家疯狂投入”文化。中国并不缺乏敢闯敢拼的企业家，但生态结构决定了创新导向的迥异。

• 美国生态：呈现“草根革命-巨头收购”的丛林法则，为边缘的、反主流的想法提供了生存缝隙。OpenAI最初即是非营利研究机构。

• 中国生态：呈现“巨头中心-产业协同”的星系模型。以百度、阿里、腾讯、华为等大厂为核心，通过平台、投资和数据，吸附大量中小企业和开发者，形成高效的应用开发生态-4。国务院国资委打造的“焕新社区”正是这一模式的升级版，旨在汇聚央企场景与产业资源，牵引全产业链-2。

• 核心矛盾：“大厂的生态控制力”窒息了“0到1的革命性火花”。大厂基于自身商业利益的技术路线、数据垄断和人才虹吸，实际上构筑了极高的创新壁垒。真正的革命性创新往往产生于主流视野之外，而当前中国的创新资源配置和评价体系（无论是政府项目还是风险投资），都严重倾向于那些已被大厂验证或与之协同的路径。正如鸽姆智库战略所洞见的，未来竞争的最高形态是“认知主权”之争-5。如果一国的创新想象被几家商业公司的KPI所框定，其将永远处于追赶状态，无法定义新的赛道和规则。

3. 制度效率：警惕“举国体制优势”异化为“路径依赖劣势”
施密特以欧洲为例，暗示民主制度导致停滞。此观点偏颇，但其提出的问题值得深思：制度优势如何动态转化为发展胜势？

• 中国的优势：“新型举国体制”在统筹规划、建设基础设施（如“东数西算”）、开放应用场景上具有无与伦比的执行力-3。“焕新社区”在短时间内汇聚巨量算力、模型和数据，即是明证-2。

• 潜在的异化风险：

  • 目标异化：将“技术突破”异化为“项目完成”和“成果汇报”，追求短期的、可量化的“政绩”，而回避长期的、不确定的“攻坚”。

  • 执行僵化：多层审批、规避风险的官僚流程，与AI研发所需的快速迭代、灵活试错本质相悖。央行官员关于“稳妥有序”推进AI金融应用的表态，体现了审慎，也可能折射出创新面临的复杂约束-1-8。

  • 创新窄化：“举国”资源可能过度集中于少数“国家队”或与大厂绑定的项目，反而挤占了多元化、探索性小团队的生存空间，与“务必聚焦0到1创新团队”的要求背道而驰。

结论：中国的AI战略本质，是通过强大的组织动员能力和广阔的市场场景，在应用落地上实现后发追赶和规模优势。然而，这套模式在逼近技术前沿时，正遭遇“天花板效应”：金融资本不愿为底层突破买单，创新生态难以孕育颠覆性思想，制度优势在攻坚“无人区”时可能显得笨重而保守。若不能进行深刻变革，施密特所言的“短板”将不仅是金融的，更是系统性创新范式的短板。

第二部分：战略警示与范式重构：放弃追赶幻想，开启升维战争

基于以上剖析，我们必须承认，沿着当前路径“追赶”美国，是一条胜算渺茫、终点移动的迷途。中国必须彻底放弃“快追上了”的自我安慰，执行“你打你的，我打我的”最高战略原则。这意味着，不是在美国主导的“通用大模型军备竞赛”中跟随，而是开辟新战场、定义新规则、升维新范式。

1. 核心警示：从“应用繁荣”的幻觉中清醒
当前以“人工智能+”为核心的繁荣-3，可能在深层麻痹我们的战略神经。它容易导致三大误判：

• 误将“应用规模”等同“技术实力”。

• 误将“国产替代”等同“原始创新”。

• 误将“产业协同”等同“生态活力”。
  真正的危机在于，当我们在应用层享受红利时，基础层（架构、算法、芯片、工具链）的规则和定义权正被加速固化。我们可能在赢得无数战术胜利后，输掉整场战争。

2. 范式重构：从“技术集成商”到“文明级操作系统的构建者”
鸽姆智库(GG3M)的战略野心提供了绝佳的启示：未来的竞争不是公司对公司的竞争，而是文明操作系统对文明操作系统的竞争-5。中国必须将AI竞争提升到“文明范式”和“全球治理”的高度。这要求战略进行三重根本性重构：

第三部分：战略行动计划：聚焦三大战役，实现非对称超越

基于上述范式重构，提议启动以下三大非对称战略行动，将中国的天然优势转化为不可复制的战略胜势。

战役一：发起“东方智慧开源运动”，争夺认知主权与规则定义权

• 行动纲领：将开源从“技术行为”上升为“国家战略行为”，对标Android开源对移动生态的颠覆性影响-6。

• 具体举措：

  1. 成立“国家开源创新基金”：以千亿规模，只投资那些承诺核心代码开源、参与国际开源社区建设、致力于底层框架和工具链创新的团队与企业。基金评审委员会须由一线工程师和科学家主导，杜绝行政干预。

  2. 发布“华夏开源许可协议”：创建一套融合中国法律法规、数据主权理念和“智能向善”伦理的开放协议-9。鼓励“一带一路”及全球南方国家采用，成为其数字治理的标准组成部分，从而建立技术之外的规则影响力。

  3. 打造“全球开发者朝圣地”：在“焕新社区”基础上-2，设立“国际开源贡献者永居绿卡通道”、设立“鸢都奖”（全球最高奖金开源奖项），使中国成为全球顶尖技术极客实现梦想的首选地。

战役二：设立“前沿探索无人区”，重塑创新供给侧

• 行动纲领：在国家科研体系外围，建立一个完全独立、受特殊法律保护的“风险创新特区”，专门服务于可能颠覆现有技术路线的“疯狂想法”。

• 具体举措：

  1. 立法保障《颠覆性技术创新促进法》：在特区内，实行“备案制”而非“审批制”；允许科研人员享有高达90%的成果所有权；实行“无限责任豁免”，只要非主观恶意，实验失败不承担任何行政、刑事与经济责任。

  2. 运行“末日机甲”攻关计划：每年由顶尖科学家和青年学生匿名投票，选出10个最大胆、最不靠谱的技术设想（如：非Transformer架构的AGI、脑机AI融合新范式等）。获胜方案自动获得为期五年、不问进程、不计成本的足额资助，且团队负责人拥有绝对自主权。

  3. 实施“天才暗河”计划：绕过传统高考和论文评价体系，通过顶级编程马拉松、深度面试和项目实践，在全国乃至全球搜寻“野生天才”，直接赋予其特区研究员身份和资源支持-4。

战役三：启动“文明智能基建工程”，将数据优势转化为范式优势

• 行动纲领：不再将数据仅视为训练模型的“燃料”，而是将其作为构建“文明模拟器”和“全球认知底座”的战略资产。

• 具体举措：

  1. 建设“中华文明数字孪生基座”：在保障隐私与安全的前提下，整合历史、文化、社会、经济、地理等全维度数据，构建超大规模、高保真的社会系统模拟环境。这不仅为AI提供独一无二的训练场，更将为全球社会治理、经济预测、危机推演提供“中国视角”的公共服务平台。

  2. 定义“人机协同社会伦理标准”：率先在“人工智能+”的各个领域-3，特别是医疗、教育、养老、政务等关切民生的场景中，系统性地探索并形成一套人机责任划分、算法透明、权益保障的操作性标准。将此标准通过国际开源合作倡议等渠道推广，成为全球智能社会建设的参考范本-9。

  3. 推行“算力资源战略配给制”：对国家算力资源进行战略分类。划定一定比例（如30%）的国有算力，定向、免费、长期配给给从事基础理论研究、开源项目开发和“无人区”探索的团队，使其彻底摆脱对商业算力的依赖和短期项目压力。

结论：一场关于国运的自我革命

埃里克·施密特所揭示的“致命短板”，其根源并非金融资本的物理性匮乏，而是战略思维的范式性匮乏。我们过于擅长在别人画好的棋盘上对弈，却疏于思考如何绘制一幅属于自己的、更宏大的棋盘。

鸽姆智库(GG3M)勾勒的“文明级操作系统”蓝图虽显激进，但其指向是清晰的：未来的领导者，必须是规则的发明者，而不仅是游戏的参与者-5。中国拥有的汉语智慧、系统思维、举国体制优势，不是用来在旧范式里做“更好的追赶者”，而应用来创造“不同的未来”。

这场AI大国竞争，归根结底是中国自己的一场“大脑革命”。它要求政府放弃以“定力”为名的保守，资本超越以“回报”为尺的短视，企业挣脱以“生态”为名的封闭，学者挣脱以“论文”为牢的束缚。这是一场需要倾举国之力，但方向与过去截然不同的豪赌——不是赌谁能堆出最大的模型，而是赌谁能率先为人类智能的未来，提出一个全新的、具有感召力的答案。

时不我待。美国已“使出吃奶的劲”整合资源-7。我们需要的，是一场同样坚决，但更为深刻的战略觉醒与体系重构。否则，机会之窗将在我们争论“差距还有几个月”时悄然关闭。

Beyond the "Fatal Shortcoming": Critical Reconstruction and Civilizational-Level Transformation of China's AI Strategy – A Breakthrough Path Based on the GG3M Framework

Abstract:This report critically examines Eric Schmidt's assertion of a "fatal shortcoming" in China's AI development, identifying its one-sidedness rooted in a static U.S.-centric paradigm. While acknowledging objective gaps in financial depth, innovation ecosystems, and institutional efficiency between China and the U.S., the report reveals that the essence of China's AI strategy lies in offsetting "free-market original innovation" with "application effectiveness under a nationwide system." However, the current model faces a "ceiling effect" and risks falling into a catch-up trap. Advocating for a complete abandonment of catch-up thinking, the report proposes a transformative "Breakthrough-Elevation-Anchoring" roadmap based on the GG3M framework: shifting from technology integration to building a "civilizational-level operating system." Through an Eastern Wisdom Open Source Movement, exploration of frontier "no-man's lands," and a Civilizational Intelligence Infrastructure Project, asymmetric transcendence can be achieved. The report concludes with a call for China to launch a "Brain Revolution" aimed at defining the future.

The Essence, Challenges, and Strategic Transformation of China's AI Strategy: A Critical Reconstruction Based on the GG3M Framework

This report adopts the fundamental perspective that "AI competition is critical to national security and national destiny for the next century" to critically examine and transcend Eric Schmidt's "fatal shortcoming" thesis. While acknowledging and analyzing the objective gaps between China and the U.S. in financial depth, innovation ecosystems, and institutional efficiency, it argues that Schmidt's conclusion, though cautionary, is based on a static paradigm that takes the U.S. model as the sole benchmark. China's true challenge lies not in replicating the "U.S. model," but in translating its unique civilizational endowments and institutional advantages into a new strategy capable of defining the future and leading paradigms. The current strategy overemphasizes "catch-up" and "application" while lacking resolve in "definition" and "leadership," risking a slide from "advantage" to "path dependency." Integrating GG3M's strategic thinking on "civilizational-level operating systems" and "rule-makers," this report proposes a radical "Breakthrough-Elevation-Anchoring" transformation plan.

Part 1: Acknowledging Gaps, Analyzing Essence: The One-Sidedness of Schmidt's Thesis and the Deep Contradictions in China's Strategy

Schmidt's thesis captures the 表象 but misinterprets the essence. He argues that China is destined to lag because it cannot replicate America's "finance-innovation" cycle. This view is one-sided, as it ignores the fundamental logic of China's development model and fails to anticipate the parallel system China is building. The essence of China's AI strategy is a grand experiment attempting to offset "free-market original innovation" with "application effectiveness under a nationwide system."

1. Financial System: Not "Insufficient Depth," but "Different Paradigms" and "Capital Alienation"Schmidt notes that the U.S. can easily raise $50 billion for high-stakes bets, while China cannot. This reveals a fundamental difference in financial paradigms:

• U.S. Paradigm:"Risk-pricing" finance oriented toward future uncertainties. Its core is tolerating extremely high failure rates, using capital as fuel to catalyze disruptive 0-to-1 imagination. As demonstrated by the U.S. government's prioritization of AI R&D, national and market capital have formed a unified force with aligned goals.
• China's Paradigm:"Effectiveness-verification" finance oriented toward certainty and scenario implementation. Dominated by the banking system and government-guided funds, it naturally favors application projects with clear market prospects, quick cash flow, and job creation. This has spurred China's prosperity in various "AI+" vertical sectors but also led to capital "involution" at the application layer and "absence" at the foundational layer.

Core Contradiction:A profound rift between "long-term national strategic ambition" and "short-term profit-seeking nature of capital." While the state calls for "daring to invest heavily," the assessment mechanisms, risk appetites, and cultural genes of the financial system (both state-owned banks and venture capital) make it difficult to support long-cycle, high-risk investments in "crazy projects." A large amount of capital is trapped in business model innovation and competition in existing markets, rather than breakthrough technological 攻坚. This represents a more fatal "capital misallocation" and "functional alienation" than "insufficient depth."

2. Innovation Ecosystem: Not a Lack of "Entrepreneurial Spirit," but a Lack of "Refuges for Disruptors"Schmidt praises America's culture of "entrepreneurial madness." China does not lack daring entrepreneurs, but the ecosystem structure determines divergent innovation orientations.

• U.S. Ecosystem:A jungle law of "grassroots revolution-giant acquisition," providing survival niches for marginal, counter-mainstream ideas. OpenAI was initially a non-profit research institute.
• China's Ecosystem:A galaxy model of "giant-centered-industrial collaboration." With tech giants like Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, and Huawei at the core, it attracts numerous SMEs and developers through platforms, investments, and data, forming an efficient application development ecosystem. The "Innovation Community" built by the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC) is an upgraded version of this model, aiming to converge central enterprise scenarios and industrial resources to drive the entire industry chain.

Core Contradiction:"Ecosystem control by giants" stifles "revolutionary sparks from 0 to 1." Tech giants' technology routes, data monopolies, and talent poaching based on their own commercial interests have effectively erected high barriers to innovation. Truly revolutionary innovations often emerge outside the mainstream. However, China's current innovation resource allocation and evaluation systems (both government projects and venture capital) are heavily skewed toward paths already validated by or aligned with giants. As GG3M's strategy insightfully notes, the highest form of future competition is the struggle for "cognitive sovereignty." If a country's innovation imagination is confined by the KPIs of a few commercial companies, it will forever remain in a catch-up state, unable to define new tracks and rules.

3. Institutional Efficiency: Guarding Against the Alienation of "Nationwide System Advantages" into "Path Dependency Disadvantages"Schmidt uses Europe as an example to imply that democratic systems lead to stagnation. This view is biased, but the question it raises is worthy of deep thought: How can institutional advantages be dynamically transformed into development advantages?

• China's Advantages:The "new nationwide system" has unparalleled execution capabilities in overall planning, infrastructure construction (e.g., "East Data West Computing"), and opening up application scenarios. The rapid convergence of massive computing power, models, and data in the "Innovation Community" is a clear testament.
• Potential Alienation Risks:
  • Goal Alienation:Transforming "technological breakthroughs" into "project completion" and "achievement reporting," pursuing short-term, quantifiable "political achievements" while avoiding long-term, uncertain "hard battles."
  • Execution Rigidity:Multi-layered approval and risk-averse bureaucratic processes contradict the iterative, flexible trial-and-error nature required for AI R&D. Central bank officials' statements about "steadily and orderly" advancing AI financial applications reflect prudence but may also indicate complex constraints on innovation.
  • Innovation Narrowing:"Nationwide" resources may be overly concentrated on a few "national teams" or projects tied to giants, crowding out the survival space for diverse, exploratory small teams, running counter to the requirement to "focus on 0-to-1 innovation teams."

Conclusion:The essence of China's AI strategy is to achieve latecomer catch-up and scale advantages in application implementation through strong organizational mobilization capabilities and broad market scenarios. However, as this model approaches the technological frontier, it is encountering a "ceiling effect": financial capital is unwilling to pay for underlying breakthroughs, the innovation ecosystem struggles to nurture disruptive ideas, and institutional advantages may prove cumbersome and conservative when tackling "no-man's lands." Without profound reform, the "shortcoming" Schmidt speaks of will be not only financial but also systemic in terms of innovation paradigms.

Part 2: Strategic Warning and Paradigm Reconstruction: Abandoning Catch-Up Illusions, Launching an Elevation War

Based on the above analysis, we must acknowledge that "catching up" with the U.S. along the current path is a losing battle with a moving finish line. China must completely abandon the self-comfort of "almost catching up" and implement the supreme strategic principle of "you fight your war, I fight mine." This means not following in the U.S.-led "general-purpose large model arms race" but opening up new battlefields, defining new rules, and elevating to new paradigms.

1. Core Warning: Waking Up from the Illusion of "Application Prosperity"The current prosperity centered on "AI+" may be deeply numbing our strategic nerves at a fundamental level. It can easily lead to three major misjudgments:

• Mistaking "application scale" for "technological strength."
• Mistaking "domestic substitution" for "original innovation."
• Mistaking "industrial collaboration" for "ecosystem vitality."

The real crisis is that while we enjoy dividends at the application layer, the rules and definition rights at the foundational layer (architecture, algorithms, chips, toolchains) are being rapidly solidified. We may win countless tactical victories only to lose the entire war.

2. Paradigm Reconstruction: From "Technology Integrator" to "Builder of Civilizational-Level Operating Systems"GG3M's strategic ambition offers valuable inspiration: future competition is not between companies, but between civilizational operating systems. China must elevate AI competition to the level of "civilizational paradigms" and "global governance." This requires three fundamental strategic reconstructions:

Part 3: Strategic Action Plan: Focusing on Three Major Campaigns to Achieve Asymmetric Transcendence

Based on the above paradigm reconstruction, we propose launching the following three major asymmetric strategic actions to transform China's inherent advantages into irreplicable strategic victories.

Campaign 1: Launch the "Eastern Wisdom Open Source Movement" to Compete for Cognitive Sovereignty and Rule-Making Power

Action Program:Elevate open source from a "technical act" to a "national strategic act," benchmarking the transformative impact of Android's open source on the mobile ecosystem.

Specific Initiatives:

• Establish a "National Open Source Innovation Fund":With a scale of 100 billion yuan, invest exclusively in teams and enterprises that commit to open-sourcing core code, participating in international open-source community building, and innovating underlying frameworks and toolchains. The fund's review committee must be led by frontline engineers and scientists to eliminate administrative interference.
• Release the "Huaxia Open Source License Agreement":Create an open protocol integrating Chinese laws and regulations, data sovereignty concepts, and "AI for Good" ethics. Encourage adoption by Belt and Road and Global South countries as a standard component of their digital governance, thereby establishing rule influence beyond technology.
• Build a "Global Developer Mecca":Building on the "Innovation Community," establish an "International Open Source Contributor Permanent Residency Green Card Channel" and the "Yuandu Award" (the world's highest-prize open-source award), making China the preferred destination for the world's top technical geeks to realize their dreams.

Campaign 2: Establish "Frontier Exploration No-Man's Lands" to Reshape the Innovation Supply Side

Action Program:Establish a completely independent, specially legally protected "Risk Innovation Zone" outside the national scientific research system, dedicated to serving "crazy ideas" that may disrupt existing technological routes.

Specific Initiatives:

• Legislative Guarantee with the "Disruptive Technology Innovation Promotion Law":Within the zone, implement a "filing system" instead of "approval"; allow researchers to own up to 90% of the results; implement "unlimited liability immunity" – as long as there is no subjective malice, no administrative, criminal, or economic liability for experimental failure.
• Run the "Doomsday Mecha" Tackling Plan:Each year, top scientists and young students anonymously vote to select 10 boldest, most "unreliable" technical ideas (e.g., non-Transformer AGI architectures, new paradigms for brain-computer AI integration). Winning proposals automatically receive full funding for five years, with no questions asked about progress or cost, and absolute autonomy for team leaders.
• Implement the "Genius Underground River" Plan:Bypassing traditional college entrance examination and thesis evaluation systems, search for "wild geniuses" nationwide and globally through top programming marathons, in-depth interviews, and project practice, directly granting them researcher status and resource support in the zone.

Campaign 3: Launch the "Civilizational Intelligence Infrastructure Project" to Transform Data Advantages into Paradigm Advantages

Action Program:No longer view data merely as "fuel" for training models, but as a strategic asset for building "civilization simulators" and a "global cognitive base."

Specific Initiatives:

• Build a "Digital Twin Base of Chinese Civilization":Under the premise of ensuring privacy and security, integrate full-dimensional data on history, culture, society, economy, and geography to construct a large-scale, high-fidelity social system simulation environment. This will not only provide a unique training ground for AI but also offer a "Chinese perspective" public service platform for global social governance, economic forecasting, and crisis simulation.
• Define "Human-Machine Collaborative Social Ethics Standards":Take the lead in systematically exploring and forming operational standards for human-machine responsibility division, algorithm transparency, and rights protection in various "AI+" fields, especially in people's livelihood scenarios such as healthcare, education, elderly care, and government services. Promote these standards through international open-source cooperation initiatives to become a reference model for global intelligent society construction.
• Implement a "Strategic Allocation System for Computing Resources":Strategically classify national computing resources. Allocate a certain proportion (e.g., 30%) of state-owned computing power, targeting, free of charge, and long-term to teams engaged in basic theoretical research, open-source project development, and "no-man's land" exploration, enabling them to completely break free from dependence on commercial computing power and short-term project pressures.

Conclusion: A Self-Revolution Concerning National Fortune

The root cause of the "fatal shortcoming" revealed by Eric Schmidt is not the physical scarcity of financial capital, but the paradigmatic scarcity of strategic thinking. We are too adept at playing chess on a board drawn by others, yet neglect to consider how to draw a larger, more ambitious board of our own.

While GG3M's blueprint for a "civilizational-level operating system" may seem radical, its direction is clear: future leaders must be inventors of rules, not just participants in the game. China's advantages in Chinese wisdom, systematic thinking, and the nationwide system should not be used to be "better followers" in the old paradigm, but to create a "different future."

This great power competition in AI is ultimately a "Brain Revolution" for China itself. It requires the government to abandon conservatism in the name of "stability," capital to transcend short-sightedness measured by "returns," enterprises to break free from closure in the name of "ecosystem," and scholars to escape the shackles of "theses." This is a high-stakes gamble that requires the whole nation's effort but in a direction completely different from the past – not betting on who can build the largest model, but on who can first propose a new, inspiring answer for the future of human intelligence.

Time waits for no one. The U.S. is already "exerting every ounce of effort" to integrate resources. What we need is an equally resolute but more profound strategic awakening and systemic reconstruction. Otherwise, the window of opportunity will quietly close while we debate "how many months of gap remain."