A lot of that is predicated on the fact that a CS major in China (and other countries like India, Israel, the CEE) also studied CompArch, OS, and other "low level" disciplines which we in the US don't treat as CS anymore, which leads to a lack of understanding of how to integrate hardware with software.

The fact that DSP is a CSE major requirement abroad, but optional in much of the US aside from ECE programs (but even they have now gated DSP to those ECEs who want to specialize in EE) highlights this issue.

Can't reply so replying here:

> There are lots of young whippersnappers and “old timers” in the “west” who could easily do the Low level make it quick on small hardware stuff

Not to the same degree. The total number of CE graduates (from BS to PhD) is 19k per year in the US.

A large number of those were not introduced to table stakes CS classes like programming language design or theory of computation.

Conversely, for CS major, they are not introduced to intro circuits, digital logic design, DSP, comp arch, and in some cases even OS development because there was a pivot in how CS curricula for undergrads was designed over the past 10 years.

> in the context of adoption as opposed to frontier development.

For real world applications like military applications or dual use technology, frontier development is not relevant. It's important but it's not what wins wars or defines industries.

Being able to develop frontier models but being unable to productionize foundational models from scratch for sub-$2M like Deepseek did despite paying US level salaries highlights a major problem.

And this is the crux of the issue. The best engineers are those who recognize what is "good enough".

Americans who did their undergrad here over the past 10 years act more like "artists" who want to build to perfection irrespective of whether it actually meets tangible needs or is scalable.

> We aren’t actually engineers, we didn’t get to take classes in the engineering college, maybe we should have

Which is the crux of my argument.

CS is an engineering discipline, and some of the best CS undergrad programs in the US like Stanford, Cal, MIT, and UCLA make sure to enforce Engineering requirements for CS majors.

The shift of CS from being a department within a "College of Engineering" to being offered as a BA/BS in the "College of Arts and Sciences" sans engineering requirements is a recentish change from what I've seen.

> Incidentally a lot of AI movers are EEs, not even CSE or CEE.

Yep! Gotta love Information Theory and Optimization Theory. And a major reason I feel requiring a dual-use course like DSP for CS/CE majors is critical.

There are lots of young whippersnappers and “old timers” in the “west” who could easily do the Low level make it quick on small hardware stuff, the US companies just aren’t asking us to?

Computer science doesn’t have the EE pre-requisites to do DSP while computer engineering does. We aren’t actually engineers, we didn’t get to take classes in the engineering college, maybe we should have.

Incidentally a lot of AI movers are EEs, not even CSE or CEE.

I am not disputing or arguing the the reasons for it. I was simply pointing out that the "falling behind" part in the article was more in the context of adoption as opposed to pure development.