When Stanford University’s Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence surveyed global attitudes toward AI in 2025, the results revealed a chasm that transcends technology: 80% of Chinese respondents said they were “excited” about new AI services, compared with just 35% in the United States and 38% in the United Kingdom. This 45-percentage-point enthusiasm gap isn’t merely a curiosity in cross-cultural psychology—it represents a strategic advantage that could determine which nation leads the AI era.
The excitement gap reflects deeper structural differences in how China and the United States approach AI education, from kindergarten through university. While China mandates eight hours of annual AI instruction for all students starting in elementary school, implements centralized curricula nationwide, and deploys tens of billions in coordinated government-industry investment, the United States maintains a fragmented system where only four states explicitly emphasize AI within computer science standards, only 12 require computer science for high school graduation, and just 6.4% of K-12 students take courses related to information technology or AI.
These aren’t abstract policy differences—they’re workforce development strategies with profound geopolitical implications. By 2035, an estimated 70% of U.S. jobs will require AI literacy or advanced digital skills. China is systematically preparing its entire youth population for this reality. The United States, despite being home to world-leading AI companies from Google and Microsoft to OpenAI and Anthropic, risks watching its educational advantage erode precisely when AI literacy becomes as fundamental as reading and arithmetic.
This analysis examines the cultural, policy, and structural factors driving China’s AI education advantage, the specific curriculum integration strategies each nation employs, the industry-education partnerships accelerating China’s progress, the long-term competitive implications for global AI leadership, and—critically—what the United States can learn from Asian AI education models without abandoning the strengths of decentralized innovation that have historically fueled American technological leadership.
The Cultural Foundation: Why Excitement Matters
The 80% vs. 35% excitement gap isn’t just about feelings—it’s about readiness. Cultural attitudes toward technology shape everything from curriculum acceptance to career choices to entrepreneurial risk-taking. Understanding why Chinese citizens embrace AI enthusiastically while Americans approach it with greater skepticism reveals dynamics that education policy alone cannot address.
Deng Xiaoping’s Legacy: Technology as National Progress
“This attitude isn’t surprising,” says Fang Kecheng, a professor of communications at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, commenting on China’s AI enthusiasm. “There’s a long tradition in China of believing in technology as a driver of national progress, tracing back to the 1980s, when Deng Xiaoping was already saying that science and technology are primary productive forces.”
This philosophical foundation—that technological advancement directly drives national prosperity and social improvement—permeates Chinese education from elementary school forward. Students learn that China’s historical periods of greatness coincided with technological leadership (the Four Great Inventions: papermaking, printing, gunpowder, the compass) and that modern national rejuvenation requires reclaiming technological preeminence.
The 2024 gaokao (China’s college entrance exam) included an essay question: “with the emergence of AI, will we have less or more questions?” The fact that millions of students nationwide contemplate AI’s societal implications as part of their most consequential academic assessment illustrates how deeply AI has penetrated educational consciousness.
This cultural framing presents AI not as a threat to jobs or privacy but as an opportunity for national advancement and individual prosperity. When Chinese students encounter AI education, it arrives already contextualized as essential for China’s future and their personal success within it.
American Skepticism: Privacy, Displacement, and Distrust
American attitudes toward AI reflect different cultural foundations. The United States emphasizes individual rights, privacy protection, and healthy skepticism toward both government and corporate power. In this context, AI arrives laden with concerns: algorithmic bias, surveillance capitalism, job displacement, deepfakes, misinformation, autonomous weapons.
American media coverage of AI tilts negative. Stories about AI hallucinations, copyright violations, facial recognition errors, and ChatGPT’s potential to enable cheating dominate public discourse. When Pew Research surveyed Americans in 2025, they found more people concerned than excited about AI’s increasing presence in daily life—a pattern consistent with how Americans have historically approached transformative technologies from automobiles to nuclear power to social media.
This skepticism isn’t irrational. American values emphasizing privacy and individual autonomy create legitimate concerns about AI’s societal impacts. However, the educational consequence is that AI education in American schools must overcome cultural headwinds that Chinese educators don’t face.
When American teachers introduce AI concepts, they must simultaneously address student and parent concerns about privacy, ethics, bias, and appropriate use. Chinese educators, operating in a cultural context where technological progress enjoys presumptive support and where data privacy concerns are “much more lax than in the West,” can focus on technical capabilities and applications without extensive ethical debates slowing instruction.
The Demographic Divide
The enthusiasm gap varies significantly by demographics within both countries:
Age: Young adults are more excited about AI across all countries surveyed. In Israel, 46% of adults under 35 are more excited than concerned, compared with 15% of those 50 and older. Conversely, older adults are more concerned than excited relative to younger adults in 18 of 25 countries surveyed.
Gender: Men are more likely than women to have heard a lot about AI in more than half of countries polled. Women are more likely than men to be mainly concerned about increasing AI use. The ratio of women to men who are overwhelmed by AI is approximately 30:20.
Education and Income: People with less education generally show more concern than excitement about AI and less awareness of the technology overall, relative to people with more education. Wealthier students and those in STEM courses show greater enthusiasm for AI.
Internet Use: People who say they use the internet almost constantly are more likely than others to be mainly excited about growing AI use in everyday life.
These demographic patterns create feedback loops. If educated, wealthy, urban populations embrace AI while rural, lower-income populations remain skeptical, educational resources concentrate where enthusiasm already exists, widening divides. China’s centralized approach aims to distribute AI education evenly; America’s decentralized system risks exacerbating existing inequalities.
Education as Enthusiasm Engine
Cultural attitudes and educational policy interact dynamically. China’s mandated AI curriculum not only teaches technical skills—it normalizes AI as beneficial and inevitable. When every student receives eight hours of annual AI education starting in elementary school, AI stops being a mysterious, threatening technology and becomes familiar classroom content.
Liu Bingyu, a professor at China University of Political Science and Law, says AI can act as “instructor, brainstorm partner, secretary, and devil’s advocate.” She added a full session on AI guidelines to her lecture series after the university encouraged “responsible use.” This framing—AI as multi-purpose tool rather than existential threat—shapes how students approach the technology throughout their education.
Chinese universities actively encourage AI use rather than prohibit it. Where many American universities rushed to ban ChatGPT to prevent cheating, Chinese universities integrated it into coursework, teaching students to use AI effectively while understanding its limitations. This approach treats AI literacy as essential rather than dangerous.
The enthusiasm gap, then, is both cause and effect of educational differences. Cultural attitudes shape how receptive populations are to AI education, while AI education itself shapes cultural attitudes. China’s advantage is that culture and policy reinforce each other in a virtuous cycle, while American skepticism and fragmented education policy create friction that slows adoption.
Government Investment: $27 Billion vs. Fragmented Funding
The most stark difference between Chinese and American AI education isn’t philosophical—it’s financial. China is deploying tens of billions of dollars in coordinated, centralized funding to build AI education infrastructure from elementary schools through universities. The United States maintains no comparable centralized initiative, instead relying on patchwork state and local funding supplemented by private sector partnerships.
China’s National Strategy: Education Modernization 2035
China’s AI education investment operates as part of a comprehensive national strategy. The Ministry of Education’s “Education Modernization 2035” initiative positions AI as the “golden key” for the country’s educational system transformation. This isn’t rhetoric—it’s backed by massive capital deployment:
Infrastructure Investment: China is on track to more than double its AI spending to nearly $27 billion by 2026, representing 8.9% of global investment. A substantial portion targets education: building AI labs in schools, providing tablets and computing hardware, deploying high-speed internet to rural areas, and creating national digital education platforms.
Physical Infrastructure: Eastern Zhejiang province aims to build 1,000 AI experimental schools and 100 AI demonstration schools by 2025. Beijing has equipped 1,500 primary and secondary schools with AI education capabilities. Shenzhen launched over 100 “AI model campuses” and plans to train 100,000 teachers.
Computing Resources: The National Integrated Computing Network pools computing resources across public and private data centers, making powerful computational resources available for educational purposes. Students and researchers can access compute for AI training without prohibitive individual costs.
Teacher Training: Local governments fund comprehensive teacher training programs. Zhejiang province’s plan includes equipping thousands of schools with AI labs and training tens of thousands of teachers. Unlike American professional development that teachers often fund themselves, Chinese AI teacher training receives full government support.
EdTech Incentives: Tax breaks and subsidies encourage AI education ventures. According to estimates, China led globally with over $1 billion invested in AI education technologies in a single recent year. Private companies receive incentives to develop educational AI products, creating a robust market for adaptive tutoring systems, intelligent assessment tools, and personalized learning platforms.
The United States: State-by-State Fragmentation
The United States operates without a centralized AI education funding mechanism. The April 2025 executive order “Advancing Artificial Intelligence Education for American Youth” established a White House Task Force on AI Education, but crucially, “the U.S. Executive Order did not come with a big new funding package (it mostly redirects existing funds).”
State Variability: Individual states must fund AI education from their own budgets, creating enormous variability. Wealthy states like California, New York, and Massachusetts can invest significantly; poorer states struggle. Only 26% of districts planned to offer AI training during the 2024-2025 school year, though around 74% aimed to train teachers by Fall 2025—a timeline that depends on finding funding.
Federal Coordination Without Resources: The Department of Education’s proposed priority for AI education offers guidance and establishes frameworks but provides limited new funding. The Task Force seeks to “utilize industry commitments and identify any Federal funding mechanisms, including discretionary grants, that can be used to provide resources for K-12 AI education”—language indicating they’re looking for funding rather than deploying it.
Local Dependence: Most actual AI education funding depends on local school districts passing bond measures, securing private donations, or partnering with technology companies. This works well for districts in wealthy areas with tech company presences (Silicon Valley, Seattle, Boston) but leaves rural and low-income districts behind.
Private Sector Fill-In: Companies like Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and others fund Code.org and similar initiatives. While valuable, these partnerships are voluntary, selective, and can change based on corporate priorities. Code.org’s Hour of Code has reached 15% of students globally, but even this impressive achievement reflects the voluntary nature—85% of students still lack access.
Comparative Investment Realities
The funding gap has concrete consequences:
Equipment Access: Chinese schools receive government-provided tablets, robots, sensors, and computing hardware. American schools, particularly in lower-income districts, often lack basic technological infrastructure. Many American students share outdated computers; Chinese students increasingly have individual devices loaded with AI learning tools.
Curriculum Development: China funds centralized curriculum development, creating standardized AI textbooks and online courses that all students use. The U.S. relies on teachers to find and implement curricula on their own, Code.org and CSTA to develop resources voluntarily, and states to create standards independently. This fragmentation means students in Ohio learn different AI concepts than students in California.
Teacher Compensation: Chinese teachers receive government funding to attend comprehensive AI training programs. American teachers often must pursue professional development on their own time and at their own expense. This creates obvious barriers—teachers balancing multiple jobs or caring for families can’t easily add intensive technology training.
Sustainability: China’s centralized funding creates sustainable programs that continue regardless of economic conditions or political shifts. American programs depend on continued local support, making them vulnerable to budget cuts, bond measure failures, or changes in district priorities.
The Infrastructure Multiplier Effect
China’s investment in physical infrastructure creates a multiplier effect. Providing schools with AI labs doesn’t just enable current AI education—it signals to students, parents, and teachers that AI is a priority worth investing in. Well-equipped schools attract strong teachers. Students see sophisticated technology daily, normalizing AI’s presence and potential.
The United States risks the opposite dynamic. When schools lack resources, even enthusiastic teachers struggle. Inadequate equipment frustrates both teachers and students. The implicit message—that AI education isn’t important enough to fund properly—undermines efforts to build excitement and engagement.
The $27 billion China is deploying represents not just hardware and training but a national commitment visible to every family that their children’s AI education is a priority. The United States, despite vastly superior wealth, hasn’t made a comparable commitment—and the enthusiasm gap reflects this reality.
Curriculum Integration: Mandatory vs. Fragmented
How AI integrates into K-12 curricula may prove more consequential than total funding. China has implemented mandatory, nationwide, age-appropriate AI education starting in elementary school. The United States maintains a voluntary, fragmented approach where AI may or may not appear in schools depending on state standards, local decisions, and individual teacher initiative.
China’s Systematic Approach: Eight Hours Annually from Grade 1
In March 2025, Beijing’s Municipal Education Commission announced that all schools must provide students at least eight hours of AI education per academic year, starting fall 2025. This policy, soon expanding nationwide, represents a fundamental curriculum shift:
Elementary School (Grades 1-6): Hands-on activities introduce foundational AI concepts through sensory and experiential learning. Students engage with programming basics and simple robotics, learning through play and exploration designed to “spark curiosity and creativity.” The focus is making AI familiar and accessible rather than technically deep.
Middle School (Grades 7-9): Students learn to leverage AI in schoolwork and daily activities. Lessons integrate AI into existing subjects—science, math, information technology—showing how AI applies across disciplines. Students work on creative projects like chatbots, facial recognition systems, and basic machine learning models.
High School (Grades 10-12): Focus shifts to strengthening AI applications and innovation. Students tackle more sophisticated projects: smart agriculture management systems, data analysis tools, optimization algorithms. The curriculum emphasizes practical application and encourages students to develop innovative solutions to real-world problems.
Standardized Yet Flexible: The national framework provides standardization—ensuring all Chinese students receive baseline AI education—while allowing provincial and local flexibility. Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Zhejiang implement enhanced programs exceeding national minimums.
Integration Strategy: Schools can either teach AI as standalone courses or integrate it into existing subjects like information technology, science, or mathematics. This flexibility enables schools to adapt to local resources and teacher expertise while ensuring all students meet the eight-hour minimum.
Provincial Variations: Experimentation Within Framework
Within China’s national framework, provinces pursue different implementation strategies:
Beijing: Launched AI education in fall 2025 with carefully structured progression. Nearly 1,500 primary and secondary schools already provide AI lessons. Schools like Guangqumen Middle School and Haidian District Experimental Primary School have developed multi-stage AI programs serving as models for national rollout.
Shenzhen: Advancing most aggressively in close collaboration with industry. Began piloting weekly AI lessons in 2023, launched over 100 “AI model campuses,” and plans to train 100,000 teachers. The city’s tech-forward model draws on public-private partnerships with leading technology companies bringing real-world applications into classrooms.
Zhejiang: Taking what analysts describe as a “more balanced route,” combining age-appropriate instruction with major infrastructure investment and large-scale teacher training. Wenzhou city alone aims to build 1,000 AI experimental schools by 2025. Full curriculum rollout is planned for 2026.
Pilot Program: In December 2024, the Ministry of Education selected 184 schools to pilot AI curriculum models serving as a basis for wider programming. These pilots test different approaches—various technology platforms, teaching methods, assessment strategies—with successful models scaling nationally.
United States: State-by-State Incoherence
The American approach to AI curriculum integration is fragmented to the point of incoherence:
Four States with AI Standards: Only Colorado, Virginia, North Dakota, and Ohio explicitly emphasize AI within their computer science standards. Even this “emphasis” varies dramatically—Ohio may integrate AI concepts throughout grade bands while North Dakota includes a specific AI strand.
Twelve States Require Computer Science: Only 12 states require computer science courses for high school graduation. These requirements rarely mention AI specifically, leaving integration to local districts or individual teachers.
6.4% Student Participation: Despite the AI revolution’s importance, just 6.4% of K-12 students take courses related to information technology or AI. Most Americans graduate high school without formal AI education.
Guidance Not Mandates: At least 28 states have published guidance on AI in K-12 settings, but guidance documents aren’t requirements. They provide frameworks for districts that choose to implement AI education while allowing others to ignore it entirely.
No Federal Curriculum: The White House executive order establishes a task force and encourages partnerships but doesn’t mandate curriculum. American federalism prevents federal government from imposing curriculum standards, leaving decisions to states and districts.
Voluntary Teacher Adoption: In the absence of mandates, AI education depends on individual teacher initiative. The Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) found that 8 out of 10 CS teachers believe AI should be part of foundational CS education and that CS standards should include AI—but absent requirements, this belief doesn’t translate to universal implementation.
Curriculum Content Comparison
When AI education occurs in both countries, what do students actually learn?
China’s Emphasis: Chinese curriculum emphasizes practical applications and real-world projects. Students build functioning AI systems—chatbots, image recognition tools, recommendation engines—often using domestic platforms like Alibaba’s AI tools or Baidu’s PaddlePaddle deep learning framework. The focus is creating literate users and future developers who understand AI’s technical foundations and societal implications.
American Emphasis: American AI education, where it exists, often emphasizes critical thinking about AI ethics, bias, and societal impact alongside technical skills. CSTA’s “AI Learning Priorities” document prioritizes understanding AI’s environmental impact, copyright challenges, bias detection, and responsible use. This reflects American values but means less time on technical implementation compared to Chinese curriculum.
Mathematics Requirements: China integrates AI with advanced mathematics from middle school forward, treating mathematical understanding as essential for genuine AI literacy. American curricula often try to teach AI concepts without requiring advanced math, making content accessible to more students but potentially limiting technical depth.
Industry Tools: Chinese students use domestic AI platforms (Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent tools), ensuring familiarity with Chinese AI ecosystems. American students use primarily American tools (Google’s Teachable Machine, Microsoft AI services, MIT’s Scratch AI extensions), maintaining alignment with Western technology stacks.
Assessment and Accountability
Perhaps the starkest contrast involves assessment:
China: Students’ AI knowledge appears in gaokao exam questions. Regional assessments test AI competency. iFlytek collaborates with educational institutions across 10 provinces to provide voice recognition technology for high school oral examination assessments. This accountability ensures schools take AI education seriously—it affects students’ academic futures.
United States: Most states don’t assess AI knowledge. Computer science isn’t tested in standardized assessments like state achievement tests or SATs. Without accountability, schools face no consequences for ignoring AI education, and students have no external motivation to take it seriously beyond intrinsic interest.
The Coherence Problem
Code.org’s 2025 State of AI + CS Education report warns: “Without coherence, states risk building AI education on uneven or incomplete foundations—creating confusion for schools, missed opportunities for students, and fragmented expectations for the future workforce.”
The report emphasizes that “AI without CS is superficial—it teaches students to use tools, not understand or shape them.” Yet many American AI education initiatives focus on using ChatGPT or other tools without teaching the computer science foundations necessary for genuine understanding.
China’s systematic approach—mandatory hours, national framework, standardized progression, accountability through assessment—ensures every Chinese student receives baseline AI education. America’s fragmented approach—voluntary adoption, state variation, no assessment, no accountability—means AI literacy depends on the lottery of which state and district a student happens to live in.
Industry-Education Partnerships: National Teams vs. Voluntary Collaboration
Both China and the United States leverage industry partnerships to accelerate AI education, but the structures differ fundamentally. China has formalized industry-education integration through government designation of “National AI Teams” and mandatory collaboration requirements. The United States relies on voluntary corporate social responsibility and philanthropic initiatives.
China’s National AI Teams: Mandated Integration
In November 2017, China’s Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) endorsed four private sector companies to construct “National New Generation Artificial Intelligence Open Innovation Platforms” (AIOIPs):
- Baidu: Autonomous driving AI education and research
- Alibaba: Smart city applications and urban management AI
- Tencent: Medical imaging AI and healthcare applications
- iFlytek: Smart audio, natural language processing, voice recognition
By 2019, the initiative expanded to 15 AIOIPs, with SenseTime (smart vision), Huawei, and others added. Each company receives government designation and support in exchange for specific education and open innovation commitments.
The Education Obligations
These “national champion” companies must actively support government development goals, including education:
Curriculum Development: Several National AI Team members provide educational materials and establish AI curricula for use throughout China’s educational system. iFlytek collaborates with educational institutions across 10 provinces to provide voice recognition technology. Companies develop textbooks, online courses, and teaching platforms aligned with national standards.
Teacher Training: Tech companies conduct teacher training programs, bringing thousands of educators to company campuses for intensive AI instruction. Teachers learn not just pedagogy but actual AI development practices, industry use cases, and cutting-edge techniques.
School Partnerships: Companies establish direct relationships with universities and K-12 schools. Tsinghua University introduced 38 AI-related electives and invested in AI-powered research platforms partly through Alibaba partnerships. Shanghai Jiao Tong University established AI research institutes with industry funding.
Talent Pipelines: Companies create internship programs, scholarship initiatives, and direct hiring pipelines from universities. This alignment between education and employment ensures curriculum remains relevant to industry needs while guaranteeing students that AI skills lead to careers.
Open Source Platforms: Companies release proprietary AI frameworks as open source: Baidu’s PaddlePaddle, Alibaba’s XDL, SenseTime’s SenseParrots, Huawei’s MindSpore. Educational institutions use these frameworks for teaching and research, creating ecosystem familiarity that benefits both companies and students.
Squirrel AI: The EdTech Unicorn Model
Beyond “national teams,” China has incubated massive AI education companies like Squirrel AI Learning, which exemplifies the scale of industry-education integration:
Scale: Founded in 2014, Squirrel AI has opened 2,000 learning centers in 200 cities and registered over one million students—equal to New York City’s entire public school system. The company achieved unicorn status ($1+ billion valuation) by 2018 and raised over $180 million in funding.
Technology: Squirrel AI breaks subjects into thousands of “knowledge points,” using algorithms to identify specific learning gaps for each student and customize instruction. The system provides AI-powered one-on-one tutoring at scale, something impossible with human tutors.
Partnerships: Squirrel AI collaborates with Carnegie Mellon University’s School of Computer Science through the CMU-Squirrel AI Research Lab, focusing on AI, machine learning, cognitive science, and human-computer interaction technologies. This academic partnership validates technology while advancing research.
Business Model: Chinese families spend 20-26% of income on education. Squirrel AI capitalizes on this cultural priority, offering AI tutoring services that promise academic performance improvements. Student Zhou Yi’s math test scores rose from 50% to 85% using Squirrel AI—results that drive adoption.
Market Conditions: China’s intense academic competition (10 million students annually take the gaokao exam determining university admission and career prospects) creates massive demand for any advantage. Parents willingly pay for AI tutoring, enabling companies to invest heavily in R&D that advances both commercial products and general AI education capabilities.
Tencent and Alibaba: Tech Giants in Education
China’s largest technology companies maintain extensive education initiatives:
Tencent Education: Strategic cooperation with Squirrel AI embeds AI solutions in designated education products. Tencent’s AI Lab funds university-led projects emphasizing natural language processing, computer vision, and cloud computing applications. The company co-develops AI-focused curricula, internship programs, and talent pipelines with top universities.
Alibaba DAMO Academy: Increased funding for university-led AI projects. Alibaba’s AI tools are integrated into educational platforms. The company partners with Zhejiang Lab in Hangzhou (established by Zhejiang Provincial Government, Zhejiang University, and Alibaba) conducting research across quantum sensing, industrial AI, and other fields.
Industry-Academia Integration: These partnerships aren’t purely philanthropic—companies gain access to top talent, influence curriculum to align with industry needs, and build brand loyalty among future AI professionals. However, they also provide universities and schools with resources, expertise, and technologies they couldn’t develop independently.
United States: Voluntary Corporate Partnerships
American industry-education partnerships lack the mandatory coordination of China’s system:
Code.org and Hour of Code: Supported by Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and others, Code.org has reached 15% of students globally through Hour of Code initiatives. However, participation is voluntary—no company is required to support Code.org, and no school is required to participate.
Company-Specific Initiatives: Microsoft offers AI curriculum through its AI for Good program. Google provides Teachable Machine and other educational AI tools. Amazon supports AI education through AWS Educate. These initiatives are valuable but uncoordinated—schools must discover them independently and piece together resources from multiple sources.
University Partnerships: American AI companies partner with universities (OpenAI with Stanford, Google with multiple universities, Microsoft Research collaborations) but primarily for research, not K-12 education. The focus is advancing AI frontier capabilities rather than building broad workforce literacy.
NGO Intermediaries: Organizations like CSforALL, Computer Science Teachers Association, and AI4K12 serve as intermediaries connecting corporate resources with educational needs. This adds a coordination layer that China’s direct government-industry-education integration doesn’t require.
Geographic Concentration: Industry partnerships concentrate where companies have presences—Silicon Valley, Seattle, Boston, New York. Rural and inland states lack equivalent access to industry resources, expertise, and partnership opportunities.
The Public-Private Integration Model
China’s model creates tighter integration between industry, government, and education:
Aligned Incentives: When government designates national AI teams and requires education commitments, companies gain regulatory advantages, favorable policies, and government contracts. This makes education investment strategic rather than purely philanthropic.
Standardization: Government coordination ensures industry resources align with national curricula. Chinese students nationwide learn compatible skills because industry partners follow government frameworks.
Accountability: Companies report annually on AIOIP progress, creating accountability absent in voluntary American partnerships where companies can reduce education commitments without consequences.
Data Access: Government opens public data domains to industry partners—medical records for Tencent, transportation data for Alibaba, judicial records for iFlytek—enabling companies to develop AI applications with educational value while advancing commercial interests.
The American approach preserves corporate independence and local control but sacrifices coordination and universal access. Companies pursue partnerships opportunistically based on business strategies rather than national workforce development priorities. The result: excellent programs in some locations, nothing in others.
Long-Term Competitive Implications: The Workforce of 2035
The different trajectories of Chinese and American AI education aren’t academic abstractions—they’re workforce development strategies with profound economic and geopolitical implications. By 2035, the generation now receiving (or not receiving) AI education will dominate the workforce, and their capabilities will determine which nations lead the AI-driven global economy.
The 2035 Workforce Landscape
Projections for 2035 paint a workforce transformed by AI:
70% Requiring AI Literacy: An estimated 70% of U.S. jobs will require AI literacy or advanced digital skills by 2035. This isn’t just technology jobs—AI will permeate healthcare, finance, manufacturing, retail, transportation, agriculture, education, law, and nearly every other sector.
8% Earnings Premium: Research shows that a single high school computer science course increases future earnings by 8%, with even larger gains for Black students (+12%) and young women (+10%). As AI becomes more central to work, these premiums will likely increase.
Automation Displacement: Agriculture, transportation, accommodation and food services, and manufacturing face the most significant AI-driven workforce changes. Workers in these sectors without AI literacy will face displacement; those who understand AI will transition into higher-value roles managing and optimizing AI systems.
New Job Categories: Entirely new job categories will emerge—AI system trainers, algorithmic auditors, synthetic data generators, prompt engineers, human-AI collaboration specialists. Students receiving comprehensive AI education now will be positioned for these roles; those without AI background will be shut out.
China’s Human Capital Advantage
China’s systematic AI education creates several competitive advantages:
Universal Baseline: By 2035, every Chinese worker under 30 will have received mandatory AI education throughout K-12. This universal baseline enables Chinese businesses to assume AI literacy, building it into workflows, products, and business models without extensive remedial training.
Technical Depth: Chinese students receive more technical AI instruction than American counterparts. While American education emphasizes AI ethics and responsible use—valuable skills—Chinese students spend more time actually building AI systems. This creates a technical skills advantage for implementation-focused roles.
Scale of Talent Pool: China’s population (1.4 billion) dwarfs America’s (330 million). Even if equal percentages receive AI education, China produces far more AI-literate workers in absolute numbers. As of 2023, 47% of the world’s top AI researchers completed undergraduate studies in China.
Industry-Aligned Skills: Because Chinese AI education involves direct industry partnerships, students learn skills aligned with employer needs. Graduates require less on-the-job training, providing Chinese companies with immediate productivity advantages.
Domestic Ecosystem Familiarity: Chinese students learn using Chinese AI platforms (Baidu’s PaddlePaddle, Alibaba’s tools, Tencent’s systems). This creates advantages for Chinese AI companies competing for domestic market share and positions Chinese standards as familiar defaults for Chinese workers.
America’s Innovation Edge Under Pressure
The United States has historically compensated for smaller talent pools through superior innovation, entrepreneurial culture, and ability to attract global talent. These advantages face pressures:
Immigration Restrictions: Chinese nationals comprise significant portions of American AI PhD programs, but immigration restrictions (5-year green card waits, H-1B visa caps, security clearances for sensitive work) make attracting and retaining this talent increasingly difficult.
Brain Drain Risk: If Chinese AI graduates can pursue fulfilling careers in China with comparable compensation, sophisticated research facilities, and family/cultural familiarity, why immigrate to the United States? China’s improving AI ecosystem reduces America’s historical pull.
Educational Quality Gaps: America’s fragmented AI education creates quality variations. Students from well-resourced districts receive excellent AI instruction; those from under-resourced districts receive none. This inequality undermines the broadly educated workforce America needs.
Speed to Deployment: Chinese companies can deploy AI-driven business models faster when assuming workforce AI literacy. American companies must invest more in training and deal with greater employee resistance, slowing innovation cycles.
The Middle-Income Country Trap
For developing nations, the implications are even more severe. Countries that fail to build AI literacy risk economic displacement:
Manufacturing Displacement: AI-enabled automation will allow developed nations to reshore manufacturing. Why produce in Vietnam or Bangladesh when AI-powered robots in the U.S. or China can manufacture at similar costs without shipping delays or geopolitical risks?
Services Offshoring Reversal: Business process outsourcing to India, the Philippines, and other nations depends on cost arbitrage. If AI can handle customer service, data entry, basic accounting, and similar tasks, the offshoring model collapses.
AI Colonialism: Chinese companies are already exporting AI education models to Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia through initiatives like Huawei’s ICT Academy (partnered with 3,000 universities globally, training 1.3 million students) and Squirrel AI Learning pilots in Global South markets. This “code diplomacy” creates technological dependency.
Countries that don’t develop domestic AI education capabilities will depend on foreign AI systems, foreign-trained workers, and foreign companies for AI implementation—a form of economic subordination in the AI era.
The National Security Dimension
AI workforce capabilities have direct national security implications:
Military AI: Autonomous weapons, intelligence analysis, cybersecurity operations, and other military AI applications require personnel who understand AI deeply. China’s systematic education creates a larger talent pool for military AI development.
Economic Security: Economic power increasingly depends on AI capabilities. The nation with superior AI workforce is positioned to dominate AI-dependent industries from semiconductor design to pharmaceutical development to logistics optimization.
Technology Standards: The nation whose workers are most familiar with particular AI platforms and approaches will influence global technical standards. If Chinese workers predominantly use Chinese AI frameworks, Chinese companies will shape international AI standards, potentially disadvantaging American companies.
Resilience: A workforce with broad AI literacy is more adaptable to disruption. If geopolitical tensions disrupt technology supply chains, nations with greater domestic AI expertise can develop alternative solutions more quickly.
The Cumulative Advantage
Educational advantages compound over time. Today’s high school students are tomorrow’s university researchers, startup founders, corporate innovators, and political leaders. The generation now receiving comprehensive AI education in China will lead Chinese companies, universities, and government institutions through 2050 and beyond.
If China maintains its AI education advantage for another 10-15 years, the cumulative effect could shift global AI leadership permanently. America’s current advantage in frontier AI research (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Microsoft leading large language model development) depends partly on having attracted the best global talent. If China develops comparably excellent domestic talent and reduces emigration, while American AI education remains fragmented, American companies will struggle to maintain research leads.
The workforce of 2035 is being educated today. China is systematically preparing its youth for AI-driven economy. America is not. This matters profoundly.
What the U.S. Can Learn: Adaptation Without Imitation
Understanding China’s AI education advantage doesn’t require abandoning American strengths. The United States should adapt lessons from China’s successes while preserving the decentralized innovation, critical thinking, and individual liberty that have historically fueled American technological leadership.
Lesson 1: Centralized Coordination Doesn’t Require Centralized Control
China’s advantage comes partly from coordination—national standards ensure all students receive baseline AI education; government-industry partnerships align resources; infrastructure investment reaches all regions. The United States can achieve coordination without sacrificing federalism:
National Standards Framework: The federal government can’t mandate K-12 curriculum, but it can provide model standards that states voluntarily adopt. The Common Core State Standards Initiative demonstrated this approach for math and literacy. An “AI Literacy Framework” defining baseline competencies by grade level would give states and districts common reference points while preserving local control.
Funding Incentivization: Federal grants can incentivize states to adopt AI education. The Race to the Top program used competitive grants to drive education reform. A similar “Race to AI Literacy” could provide billions in funding to states meeting specific AI education benchmarks—adopting standards, training teachers, ensuring equitable access.
Interstate Compacts: States can coordinate without federal mandates through interstate compacts. Groups of states could agree on common AI standards, share curriculum resources, and coordinate teacher training programs. This enables coordination benefits while preserving state sovereignty.
Clearinghouse Function: The federal government can serve as clearinghouse connecting resources to needs without controlling implementation. A national AI education portal aggregating curricula, training programs, assessment tools, and industry partnerships would reduce fragmentation without imposing mandates.
Lesson 2: Mandatory Doesn’t Mean Oppressive
American education traditionally emphasizes student choice and local control. However, certain competencies—reading, mathematics, science—are considered so fundamental that we require them. As AI becomes similarly fundamental, mandating baseline AI literacy makes sense:
Computer Science Graduation Requirements: Following New Jersey, Maryland, and other states, require all high school students to complete at least one computer science course that includes AI concepts. This ensures universal exposure without dictating specific curriculum.
Integration into Existing Requirements: Rather than adding separate AI courses, integrate AI concepts into required math, science, and social studies courses. Teach statistics using AI-generated data. Discuss AI ethics in social studies. Analyze AI algorithms in math courses. This approach leverages existing instructional time rather than competing for more.
Career Pathway Flexibility: While requiring baseline AI literacy for all students, create advanced pathways for students pursuing AI careers. Dual enrollment programs with community colleges and universities, industry certification programs, and project-based learning opportunities can provide depth for motivated students without forcing everyone into identical programs.
Lesson 3: Industry Partnerships Can Be More Systematic
American companies already invest significantly in education, but contributions are fragmented and opportunistic. More systematic approaches would increase impact:
Sector-Specific Commitments: Following China’s national AI team model, identify leading American AI companies in different sectors (Google for natural language, NVIDIA for hardware, Microsoft for enterprise applications, etc.) and negotiate sector-specific education commitments. Companies gain regulatory goodwill, talent pipeline access, and influence over curriculum; education systems gain resources, expertise, and industry alignment.
Tax Incentives for Education Investment: Provide enhanced tax deductions or credits for corporate AI education investments. This transforms education support from pure philanthropy into financially advantageous strategy, increasing corporate participation.
Standard Partnership Agreements: Develop model agreements between schools/universities and companies that streamline partnerships. Legal complexities and administrative burdens currently discourage many potential collaborations. Standardized frameworks reduce friction.
Regional Education-Industry Clusters: Foster regional clusters connecting K-12 schools, community colleges, universities, and local AI companies. These clusters enable equipment sharing, joint curriculum development, student internships, teacher externships, and research collaborations. Rather than requiring every school to build all capabilities independently, clusters create shared resources and expertise.
Lesson 4: Teacher Capacity Is the Bottleneck
The most limiting factor in American AI education isn’t technology, curriculum, or even funding—it’s teacher capacity. Chinese teachers receive extensive government-funded AI training. American teachers largely don’t:
Comprehensive Teacher Training: Allocate substantial federal and state funding for teacher AI education. Not one-day workshops but multi-week intensive programs teaching teachers AI fundamentals, pedagogy, curriculum development, and assessment strategies. Provide stipends so teachers can participate without financial hardship.
Alternative Pathways: Recruit AI professionals into teaching through alternative certification programs. Software engineers and data scientists transitioning into education bring valuable expertise. Streamlined certification processes focusing on pedagogical training rather than traditional education prerequisites can accelerate this pipeline.
Teacher Externships: Create formal programs placing teachers in AI companies for summer externships. Teachers gain firsthand industry experience, build professional networks, and understand current AI applications—making their instruction more relevant and credible.
Ongoing Support: One-time training is insufficient for rapidly evolving field like AI. Establish continuous professional development communities where teachers share resources, discuss challenges, receive updates on AI developments, and access ongoing support. Online communities, regional networks, and annual conferences can provide this sustained engagement.
Compensation: Teachers with AI expertise deserve compensation premiums. Salary supplements for teachers qualified to teach AI (through certifications, advanced degrees, or demonstrated expertise) acknowledge additional value while incentivizing teachers to develop these capabilities.
Lesson 5: Maintain Critical Thinking While Building Technical Skills
China’s AI education emphasizes technical implementation—building AI systems. America’s emphasizes ethical reflection—questioning AI impacts. The optimal approach combines both:
Ethics Integrated with Practice: Rather than separate courses on “AI ethics,” integrate ethical considerations into technical instruction. When students build facial recognition systems, discuss bias, privacy, and surveillance concerns. When creating recommendation algorithms, analyze filter bubbles and manipulation risks. This contextualizes ethics rather than abstracting it.
Adversarial Thinking: Teach students to approach AI critically—understanding how systems can be manipulated, gamed, or misused. This adversarial mindset, historically an American strength, prevents uncritical AI acceptance while building deeper technical understanding.
Diverse Perspectives: Ensure AI education includes diverse voices and perspectives. Students from different backgrounds bring different concerns about AI’s impacts. Classroom discussions incorporating these varied perspectives create richer understanding than homogeneous groups.
Democratic Values: American AI education should explicitly address how AI affects democratic institutions, individual rights, privacy, and liberty. This distinguishes American AI literacy from Chinese approaches that may not emphasize these values as centrally.
Lesson 6: Address Equity Head-On
American AI education currently exacerbates inequality—wealthy districts provide excellent instruction; poor districts provide none. China’s centralized funding addresses this directly. America can too:
Weighted Funding Formulas: Federal and state AI education funding should favor high-need districts. Use Title I funding formulas or similar approaches ensuring under-resourced schools receive disproportionate support.
Rural Access Programs: Rural schools face unique challenges—difficulty recruiting qualified teachers, limited broadband access, lack of nearby industry partners. Targeted programs addressing these specific barriers can level the playing field. Remote instruction, traveling teacher programs, satellite-based internet initiatives, and online industry mentorships can bridge gaps.
Community College Hubs: Position community colleges as regional AI education hubs serving surrounding K-12 districts. Community colleges often have better equipment and qualified instructors than rural high schools. Dual enrollment programs, weekend workshops, summer intensives, and teacher training programs can extend community college resources to area schools.
Technology Access: Ensure all students have home internet access and computing devices. The pandemic exposed digital divides that persist. AI education requires technology access—this is prerequisite infrastructure, not optional enhancement.
Lesson 7: Preserve Innovation Advantages
American technological leadership has emerged from decentralized innovation, entrepreneurial risk-taking, and creative chaos—not central planning. Any American AI education strategy must preserve these advantages:
Encourage Experimentation: Rather than imposing uniform curriculum, encourage states, districts, and schools to experiment with different AI education approaches. Rigorously evaluate results and scale successful models while allowing failures to inform learning.
Support Entrepreneurial Teachers: Teachers developing innovative AI curricula, tools, or methods should receive recognition, resources, and pathways to disseminate innovations. Rather than forcing teachers to follow rigid scripts, empower creative educators to pioneer new approaches.
University Research Freedom: American universities drive AI innovation through academic research. Preserve university research freedom even while encouraging industry partnerships. The tension between academic inquiry and commercial application generates creativity that more directed research doesn’t.
Startup Ecosystem: American AI startups outpace Chinese counterparts in frontier innovation partly because American culture celebrates entrepreneurial risk-taking. Maintain policies enabling AI startup formation, risk capital access, and tolerance for failure that drives innovation.
Lesson 8: Learn from Other Asian Models Too
China isn’t the only instructive case. Other Asian nations offer relevant lessons:
South Korea: Integrates AI-powered digital textbooks throughout K-12 and provides comprehensive teacher training programs. The government-industry partnership model balances public investment with private innovation.
Singapore: Government investment in AI research through institutes like AI Singapore, combined with strong university programs and targeted immigration policies attracting global AI talent, creates a compact but highly effective AI ecosystem.
Japan: Despite aging population, maintains AI competitiveness through intensive automation and robotics education. Focus on human-AI collaboration rather than AI replacement of humans offers a model for addressing workforce concerns.
Estonia: Partnership with OpenAI to equip secondary schools with ChatGPT Edu demonstrates how smaller nations can leverage existing AI tools for education rather than developing everything domestically.
Each model offers insights applicable to American contexts—South Korea’s comprehensive approach, Singapore’s targeted excellence, Japan’s human-AI collaboration framing, Estonia’s strategic use of existing tools.
The Path Forward: Closing the Enthusiasm Gap
The 80% vs. 35% enthusiasm gap between China and the United States reflects structural differences in AI education, but it’s not permanent. American advantages—innovation capacity, global talent attraction, university research excellence, entrepreneurial culture, technological infrastructure—remain substantial. The question is whether America will leverage these advantages to build systematic AI education or allow fragmentation to surrender the AI-literate workforce advantage to China.
The Cost of Inaction
Maintaining current approaches carries concrete risks:
Economic Displacement: American workers without AI literacy will face systematic disadvantages in the 2035 workforce. Unemployed Americans are less economically productive, pay less taxes, require more government support, and experience worse health and social outcomes.
Competitive Disadvantage: American companies competing with Chinese firms benefit when assuming workforce AI literacy. If Chinese companies can deploy AI-driven business models faster because their workforce is prepared, American companies lose market share domestically and globally.
Geopolitical Implications: The nation leading the AI era will shape global norms, standards, and institutions. If China’s education advantage enables Chinese AI leadership, Chinese values and priorities will influence global AI development more than American values—including regarding democracy, human rights, and individual privacy.
Missed Innovation: The students not receiving AI education today are tomorrow’s potential entrepreneurs, researchers, and innovators. Every unmade scientific breakthrough, every unfounded startup, every innovation that doesn’t happen because Americans lack AI literacy represents opportunity cost.
Social Division: If AI education remains the province of wealthy districts while poor districts languish, AI will exacerbate America’s already stark inequality. The AI-literate class will accumulate power and wealth while the AI-illiterate struggle, creating social and political tensions.
The Opportunity
But the current situation also presents opportunity. The United States is awakening to AI education’s importance—the April 2025 executive order, the Department of Education’s proposed priorities, Code.org’s advocacy, state-level legislation and guidance, and industry commitments all signal growing awareness.
If America acts decisively now, it can:
Build Universal AI Literacy: Ensure all American students, regardless of geography or family income, receive comprehensive AI education preparing them for 2035’s workforce. This requires federal-state-local coordination, sustained funding, comprehensive teacher training, and accountability.
Preserve Innovation Edge: Combine systematic AI education with America’s strengths in critical thinking, creative problem-solving, and entrepreneurial risk-taking. Chinese students may learn to implement AI systems efficiently; American students can learn to reimagine what’s possible with AI.
Lead Ethical AI Development: American values regarding privacy, transparency, fairness, and accountability can shape global AI development if American AI professionals apply these values in their work. This requires AI education explicitly teaching ethical reasoning alongside technical capabilities.
Attract Global Talent: Immigration reform welcoming global AI talent gives America access to the world’s best minds. Combined with domestic AI education producing strong homegrown talent, this two-pronged approach could maintain American AI leadership.
Set Standards: American AI education can influence global standards. If American curricula, assessment methods, and pedagogical approaches prove superior, other nations will adopt them—extending American influence.
The Political Imperative
AI education cannot remain a niche concern of technology advocates and education reformers. It must become a mainstream political priority:
Bipartisan Appeal: AI education appeals across political spectrum—conservatives support workforce development and economic competitiveness; progressives support equity and universal access to technology literacy. Framing AI education as national imperative can unite otherwise divided politicians.
State Leadership: Governors and state legislators can drive change without federal mandates. States that implement comprehensive AI education will create competitive advantages attracting companies and talent.
Business Engagement: Business leaders concerned about talent pipelines should actively support AI education politically and financially. Corporate lobbying power, typically focused on taxes and regulations, could constructively focus on education funding and policy.
Parent Advocacy: Parents understanding AI’s importance for children’s futures can pressure schools to prioritize AI education. PTAs, school boards, and local advocacy can drive grassroots change.
The Cultural Shift
Ultimately, closing the enthusiasm gap requires cultural change. Americans need to view AI as opportunity rather than threat, essential literacy rather than optional specialization, and universal necessity rather than elite concern.
This cultural shift emerges from experiencing AI’s benefits firsthand—students using AI to understand difficult concepts, teachers using AI to personalize instruction, workers using AI to enhance productivity. Positive experiences create enthusiasm; enthusiasm creates cultural acceptance; cultural acceptance enables educational prioritization.
Chinese culture’s 80% AI enthusiasm didn’t arise spontaneously—it emerged from decades emphasizing technology’s importance, government investment signaling priorities, and educational systems normalizing AI from early childhood. American culture can evolve similarly if leaders prioritize AI education systematically.
The 45-percentage-point enthusiasm gap matters because it reflects and reinforces educational differences determining who leads the AI era. China’s systematic approach—mandatory curriculum, centralized funding, industry integration, universal access—is building an AI-literate workforce prepared for 2035’s economy. America’s fragmented approach leaves too many students unprepared.
But the enthusiasm gap isn’t destiny. With political will, sustained investment, systematic coordination, and commitment to equity, America can build AI education matching or exceeding China’s effectiveness while preserving American strengths in innovation, critical thinking, and individual liberty.
The question is whether America will make this commitment before the 2035 workforce emerges—or whether today’s educational inaction will create tomorrow’s competitive disadvantage. The 80% vs. 35% enthusiasm gap is a warning. Whether America heeds it will shape the rest of the 21st century.
Sources
- MIT Technology Review. (2025, August 1). Chinese universities want students to use more AI, not less. https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/07/28/1120747/chinese-universities-ai-use/
- DemandSage. (2025, November 4). 71 AI in Education Statistics 2025 – Global Trends. https://www.demandsage.com/ai-in-education-statistics/
- Stanford HAI. (2025). The 2025 AI Index Report. https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2025-ai-index-report
- Center for Security and Emerging Technology. (2023, June 9). AI Education in China and the United States. https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/ai-education-in-china-and-the-united-states/
- Ipsos. (2025, August 27). Opinions about AI vary depending on countries’ level of economic development. https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/global-opinions-about-ai-january-2022
- Pew Research Center. (2025, October 15). Views of AI Around the World. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2025/10/15/how-people-around-the-world-view-ai/
- ChinaTalk. (2025, August 1). AI Education: Understanding the Hype. https://www.chinatalk.media/p/chinas-ai-education-strategy
- The AI Track. (2025, March 11). China Mandates AI Education Nationwide by 2025, with Beijing Leading Early Implementation. https://theaitrack.com/china-mandates-ai-education/
- Fortune. (2025, March 10). China’s six-year-olds are already being offered AI classes. https://fortune.com/2025/03/10/china-school-children-ai-deepseek-liang-wengfeng-estonia-uk-america-south-korea/
- MIT Technology Review. (2024, August 22). China has started a grand experiment in AI education. It could reshape how the world learns. https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/08/02/131198/china-squirrel-has-started-a-grand-experiment-in-ai-education-it-could-reshape-how-the/
- Center for Security and Emerging Technology. (2020, July 14). AI Innovation Action Plan for Institutions of Higher Education. https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/ai-innovation-action-plan-for-institutions-of-higher-education/
- FPT. (2025, May 12). Education Becomes the New Frontline in the AI Race. https://fpt.com/en/news/fpt-news/tre-em-tro-thanh-mat-tran-moi-trong-cuoc-chien-ai
- Future of Being Human. (2025). AI in Education: Comparing China and U.S. Strategies (K-12). https://futureofbeinghuman.com/api/v1/file/2737ea4a-2ca4-4cb5-85cb-4c9ad88f6204.pdf
- Dallas Express. (2025, March 15). Mandatory AI Education Starts This Year In China’s Capital. https://dallasexpress.com/education/mandatory-ai-education-starts-this-year-in-chinas-capital/
- AI for Education. (2025, January 13). State AI Guidance for Education. https://www.aiforeducation.io/ai-resources/state-ai-guidance
- U.S. Department of Education. (2025). U.S. Department of Education Issues Guidance on Artificial Intelligence Use in Schools. https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-issues-guidance-artificial-intelligence-use-schools-proposes-additional-supplemental-priority
- Code.org. (2025). 2025 State of AI + CS Education Report. https://advocacy.code.org/stateofcs/
- The White House. (2025, April 23). Advancing Artificial Intelligence Education for American Youth. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/advancing-artificial-intelligence-education-for-american-youth/
- SDCOE. (2025). AI Policy in Focus: What Federal Action Means for K-12 Computer Science. https://www.sdcoe.net/educators/curriculum-instruction/computer-science/post/~board/computer-science/post/ai-policy-in-focus-what-federal-action-means-for-k12-computer-science
- PRNewswire. (2025, December 10). New Report: AI + Computer Science Are the Foundation for U.S. K-12 Readiness, But State Policies Lag Behind. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-report-ai–computer-science-are-the-foundation-for-us-k12-readiness-but-state-policies-lag-behind-302637515.html
- Computer Science Teachers Association. (2025, July 7). AI Learning Priorities for All K-12 Students. https://csteachers.org/ai-priorities/
- Education Commission of the States. (2025, June 17). How States Are Responding to the Rise of AI in Education. https://www.ecs.org/artificial-intelligence-ai-education-task-forces/
- AI.gov. (2025). AI Education. https://www.ai.gov/initiatives/education
- Times Higher Education. (2025, March 27). Can China’s universities power it to victory in the global AI race? https://www.timeshighereducation.com/depth/can-chinas-universities-power-it-victory-global-ai-race
- Online Education. (2025, September 10). Is China Building the Future of Global Education Through AI? https://www.onlineeducation.com/features/china-shaping-global-education
- Wikipedia. (2025, December 19). Artificial intelligence industry in China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence_industry_in_China
- RAND Corporation. (2025, June 26). Full Stack: China’s Evolving Industrial Policy for AI. https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA4012-1.html
- DigiChina Stanford. (2021, October 14). Drafting China’s National AI Team for Governance. https://digichina.stanford.edu/work/drafting-chinas-national-ai-team-for-governance/
- Center for Security and Emerging Technology. China Artificial Intelligence Talent Training Report.https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/t0447_AI_talent_report_EN.pdf
