Author: MIL OSI Publisher

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Morieson, Research Fellow, Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University

Artificial intelligence (AI) is at a very Chinese time in its life. Recent moves from Chinese AI labs are throwing the dominance of American “frontier labs” such as Google and OpenAI into question.

Last week ByteDance, the company behind TikTok, released an AI video-generating tool called Seedance 2.0 which produces high-quality film-like clips from text prompts, with a casual disregard for copyright concerns. This week Anthropic, the US company behind the chatbot Claude, said three Chinese AI labs created thousands of fake accounts to harvest Claude’s answers in a practice called “distillation” which can be used to improve AI models.

These events have led to suggestions that China may be gaining the upper hand in the battle to dominate AI. So, is China winning the “AI race”?

Cheap, widely used tools

While most advanced frontier models are still made by American companies, China is pushing hard to develop cheap, widely used AI tools, which could create global dependence on Chinese platforms.

Reuters reports the industry is bracing for a “flurry” of low-cost Chinese AI models, with Chinese systems repeatedly driving usage costs down.

What’s the plan? China’s official AI policy documents suggest China sees AI as “a new engine for building China into both a manufacturing and cyber superpower”, and “a new engine of economic development”.

Since 2017, China has recognised that the technology is at the centre of “international competition”. “By 2030,” one key policy document says, China’s AI “technology and application should achieve world-leading levels, making China the world’s primary AI innovation center”.

This focus on becoming the dominant player in AI helps explain why Chinese firms are pushing hard on price. If you can make your AI cheap enough, you might just make it globally ubiquitous.

Cost helps determine who adopts AI first, and which models are first implemented in software and services. Even if the United States remains ahead on most elite benchmarks, Chinese products could still become globally influential if they are widely used and widely depended upon.

High-tech soft power

But China does not present its AI technology to the world as only benefiting itself. Instead, it’s pitched as a contribution to humanity.

A 2019 statement of “governance principles” from a national AI governance expert committee argues that AI development should enhance “the common well-being of humanity” and “serve the progress of human civilization”.

These phrases portray AI as a technology that advances the human story itself, rather than only serving Chinese interests. It suggests Chinese AI leadership is good for everyone.

This is an example of Chinese soft power. Tools such as Seedance may threaten Hollywood’s business model, but they do something else too. High-quality, low-cost generative media can spread quickly.

EMBED VIDEO HERE?

If Chinese systems become widespread, they can influence creators, developer habits, and platform dependencies, especially in non-Western markets that need affordable tools and may dislike American tech dominance.

The spread of the ‘Chinese model’

For liberal democracies such as the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada, the growth of Chinese AI tools creates a strategic headache. It will not be easy to manage security concerns about Chinese technology while avoiding technological isolation if Chinese AI tools become widely adopted.

There is a darker side to China’s AI tools. US think-tank Freedom House describes China as having the world’s “worst conditions for internet freedom”, and suggests other nations are now “embracing the ‘Chinese model’ of extensive censorship and automated surveillance”.

In 2022, the Cyberspace Administration of China issued rules for the algorithms that curate news feeds and short video platforms. Providers are required to “uphold mainstream value orientations” and “vigorously disseminate positive energy”.

These algorithms are important because they shape what people see and what is suppressed. As a result, these rules suggest the Chinese government is deeply concerned with controlling information across its social media platforms and AI tools.

A dilemma for third parties

Not every Chinese AI tool is a propaganda weapon. Rather, China is building world-class AI technology within an authoritarian system that prioritises the control of information.

This means China’s ability to make generative AI commercially powerful will likely also, despite its claims about serving “human civilisation”, make censorship and narrative management cheaper and easier.

China’s business and soft-power model is a much bigger story than just Seedance’s cavalier attitude towards copyright or Anthropic’s concerns about intellectual property. China’s goal is to build AI tools that rival those created by America’s tech giants, and to make them inexpensive and adopted globally.

For other countries, this may create a dilemma. Once a technology becomes a standard, it can be difficult to justify using a different product.

The question that remains is whether liberal democracies can adopt China’s low-cost products without drifting into dependence on systems shaped by an authoritarian political model.

– ref. How China is betting cheap AI will get the world hooked on its tech – https://theconversation.com/how-china-is-betting-cheap-ai-will-get-the-world-hooked-on-its-tech-276878

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/27/how-china-is-betting-cheap-ai-will-get-the-world-hooked-on-its-tech-276878/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hazel Dalton, Senior Research Fellow, Rural Health Research Institute, Charles Sturt University

According to the latest polling, the right-wing populist party, One Nation, is gaining significant political ground.

But the party has also made headlines for its controversial proposal to make new doctors complete a period of regional or rural service, in return for getting a Medicare provider number. This number is essential for accessing Medicare services such as bulk billing, where patients pay no out-of-pocket expenses for seeing a GP.

One Nation’s proposal is a blunt solution to a real problem. But could this policy actually work?

What exactly is One Nation proposing?

Earlier this week, One Nation MP Barnaby Joyce raised the idea of requiring doctors to work regionally before they can work in cities. If they don’t do a regional stint, they would essentially be blocked from practising under Medicare, Australia’s national health insurance scheme.

As a result, they would not have the option to bulk-bill or refer patients for pathology tests, such as biopsies and blood tests. This means patients can’t get rebates for seeing a doctor. For a ten-minute consultation which costs about $90, for example, the patient would not get the $43.90 rebate back.

At this stage, the proposal is short on detail. It’s unclear if it will apply to all medical graduates, and how long they will required to stay in a rural or regional location. But Joyce has suggested the length of service vary by remoteness. This would mean doctors who work in more remote locations would serve shorter terms.

So, could this policy work in practice?

Probably not. Australia has both a shortage of GPs and an unevenly distributed GP workforce. And a compulsory rural service policy does little to address either problem.

While the number of GPs in Australia has grown, particularly between 2018 and 2023, this growth has not kept pace with the demand for doctors. And the gap is even wider in rural areas.

A compulsory period of service might increase the number of newly qualified GPs in some rural communities. But research suggests they won’t stay long. Many forced service programs struggle to retain people after the service period ends. And even if existing doctors leave and are replaced by new ones forced to work in the country, this is a problem because local patients can’t benefit from continuity of care.

One American study tracked 240 international medical graduates who, because of their visa requirements, had to work rurally for three years. It found most relocated to urban areas within two years of fulfilling that visa requirement.

If you look at the distribution of our GP workforce, there is a clear pattern: GP numbers drop as remoteness increases. As a result, small rural towns have the fewest GPs relative to their population.

This matters because these communities are often too small to sustain a private general practice. And they are usually too far from larger regional centres for residents to easily access care.

Unfortunately, these are structural problems a coercive rural service policy are unlikely to fix. Instead, we should focus on programs which reward doctors for working in the regions.

One example is the Workforce Incentive Program (Doctor Stream). This program offers medical graduates an annual payment which increases according their year of service and level of remoteness.

Funding is also available for rural doctors seeking professional development. These include the Rural Procedural Grants Program and the Australian General Practice Program. As of 2026, the Australian General Practice Program has an additional 100 places dedicated to training rural GPs.

Are there any downsides to this policy?

Yes. Here are three.

First, this policy devalues regional communities. If we force doctors to go to rural communities, it reinforces the idea that rural places aren’t worth choosing. Medical schools already tend to frame metropolitan practice as the goal, and rural practice as the back-up plan. Forcing graduates into rural service may deepen that stigma. So instead of strengthening rural health care, this policy would discourage the long-term commitment rural communities actually need.

Second, it may increase medical costs for rural patients. Based on Joyce’s comments to date, doctors without a Medicare Provider Number will not be allowed to bulk-bill. This means they will charge fees, shifting the cost of health care to patients.

Third, this policy might discourage people from pursuing general practice altogether. Australia is already facing a GP shortage, which is only expected to get worse. For young medical students, a period of compulsory service scheme might become another barrier to pursuing a career in general practice.

One Nation’s proposal may sound straightforward. But without considering the details and potential risks, it may just exacerbate our current shortage of rural and regional GPs. So to find a solution, we may have to go back to the drawing board.

– ref. One Nation wants to get more doctors in rural areas – but it’s got the wrong approach – https://theconversation.com/one-nation-wants-to-get-more-doctors-in-rural-areas-but-its-got-the-wrong-approach-276753

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/27/one-nation-wants-to-get-more-doctors-in-rural-areas-but-its-got-the-wrong-approach-276753/