A commentary published on Aug. 5 by Renmin Ruiping, a column under China’s state-backed People’s Daily, said untranslated English AI terms such as Token, Agent, and LLM have moved directly into everyday discussion, textbooks, policy materials, and media coverage, raising barriers to public understanding and threatening China’s technological discourse power.
The article, written by Li Wei and titled “Using ‘Token’ or ‘Ciyuan’ Concerns Technological Discourse Power,” framed language as part of national strategic competition in artificial intelligence. It warned that if large numbers of frontier terms enter public view in English without localization, the Chinese language system could be diluted and China could lose initiative in shaping AI discourse.
Commentary says English terminology is widening the understanding gap
The piece said Chinese has historically shown strong capacity to absorb and transform foreign concepts. It cited the translation of “Computer” as “diannao” and “Internet” as “hulianwang” as examples that fit the semantic logic of Chinese and became integrated into the language system.
By contrast, the commentary said core AI terms including Token, Agent, and LLM are now often presented only in English or as English abbreviations. It noted that Agent is commonly translated in mainland China as “智能体,” while “智慧体” or “代理” are also used in Taiwan. According to the article, these English labels lack cultural and semantic grounding for the general public, making them hard to understand at a glance. It said the result is a squeeze on Chinese expressive space, a higher threshold for understanding frontier technology, and a wider digital divide across society.
People’s Daily links terminology to scientific autonomy
The commentary went beyond communication issues and connected terminology to long-term technological self-reliance. It argued that language shapes thought, and that prolonged dependence on imported terms or Western linguistic logic could confine China’s scientific understanding within an existing Western framework, limiting the development of original theories rooted in local practice.
“Terminology is the basic unit of scientific and technological narrative,” the article said. If the power to define and interpret core concepts remains in others’ hands, it added, a distinctly Chinese technology discourse system cannot be built. The commentary said this kind of cognitive dependence is more hidden than a direct technology gap and poses a greater long-range threat to scientific self-strengthening.
Article proposes a layered language framework
The piece also said standardizing technology language does not mean becoming closed off or rejecting openness. Instead, it called for a “layered and orderly” system of use. In international academic exchanges and cross-border cooperation, it said English originals should remain in place. In domestic public communication, classroom teaching, and policy outreach, standardized Chinese translations such as “词元” for Token and “智能体” for Agent should be promoted.
To make that work, the commentary urged relevant authorities to improve the terminology review process and shorten the lag between fast technical iteration and the release of standardized translations. It also called on media organizations and technology companies to adopt standardized wording on their own, while universities and research institutions should set an example and guide younger generations toward stronger awareness of their mother tongue.
The commentary first appeared in Renmin Ruiping under People’s Daily and was later covered by BlockTempo.