Two Departments Issue 'Measures for the Management of Service Industry Development Funds'
Real money is being injected, and the policy compass is once again pointing toward "AI + Consumption." With the revision of the "Measures for the Administration of Service Industry Development Funds" by the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Commerce, the directive to "promote the popularization and application of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence in the consumption sector" has been explicitly written into the scope of financial support. At first glance, this appears to
Analysis
Real money is being injected, and the policy compass is once again pointing toward "AI + Consumption." With the revision of the "Measures for the Administration of Service Industry Development Funds" by the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Commerce, the directive to "promote the popularization and application of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence in the consumption sector" has been explicitly written into the scope of financial support. At first glance, this appears to be good news—technological applications finally have an official "red envelope" backing them. However, upon reflection, a familiar set of logic underlies this move, and it raises some sharper questions.
First, we must acknowledge that the policy intent is clear. At a time when domestic demand urgently needs boosting and consumption is seeking new growth points, designating AI technology as a "lever" for upgrading the service industry is a sound direction. Whether it's smart retail, intelligent customer service, unmanned delivery, or personalized recommendations, AI's potential to enhance consumer experience and reduce operational costs is tangible. From the policy text, it appears that funds will be used to "stimulate consumption vitality in lower-tier markets," which seems to target the vast county-level and rural markets, attempting to bridge the urban-rural divide in consumption services through technology—a goal worthy of recognition.
However, good intentions need paths that can withstand scrutiny. The core concern is whether this "funded guidance" model might devolve into an "AI application packaging contest" between localities and enterprises. The word "support" sounds wonderful, but in practice, it can easily be reduced to subsidies. Once subsidy logic dominates, it could give rise to a batch of "policy-driven projects" created solely to secure funding: some local governments or enterprises might be more eager to purchase a few service robots or build a seemingly dazzling AI data dashboard, rather than genuinely examining whether AI technology deeply integrates with the pain points and needs of local service industries. Ultimately, fiscal funds might be exchanged for a pile of flashy "exhibits" rather than "productive forces" that can sustainably create value. It’s like handing money directly to a struggling restaurant to buy a full set of imported kitchen equipment—if the chef’s skills don’t improve, the menu isn’t updated, and customer traffic doesn’t increase, even the newest equipment is just a display.
A more fundamental question is: for the service industry, is AI an "empowering tool" or a "replacement solution"? The core competitiveness of the service industry often lies in the warmth, flexibility, and creativity of "people." Overemphasizing the "popularization and application" of AI, in fields that require emotional connection and delicate care (such as eldercare, healthcare, and educational consulting), might lead to a mechanical pursuit of efficiency, thereby eroding the precious core of the service industry. If policy funds are only tilted toward visible investments in technological hardware, while neglecting support for improving the digital literacy of service industry practitioners and restructuring service processes and human-machine collaboration models, it could lead to the awkward situation where "technology is deployed, but people are left behind."
Furthermore, this administrative measure places AI applications within the framework of "accelerating the cultivation of new growth points for consumption." While this is certainly an important aspect, the fundamental challenges facing the service industry extend far beyond technological application. The convenience of the business environment, the transparency of market access, the accessibility of financing for small and medium-sized enterprises, and the assurance of fair competition... Reducing these institutional costs might stimulate the vitality of the service industry more fundamentally than directly subsidizing a few AI applications. If funds are overly focused on the single point of "technology" while ignoring the broader institutional landscape, it’s like only adding high-octane gasoline to a sports car while disregarding the bumpy roads and poor traffic rules—no matter how good the car’s performance is, it won’t achieve the desired acceleration.
Ultimately, the role of government funds in the field of innovation should be to "provide help in times of need" and "build roads and bridges," rather than "adding frosting to the cake" or "getting directly involved." The future of "AI + Consumption" should rely more on market entities to spontaneously explore and iterate in an open and fair environment. The focus of policy should perhaps be more on clearing data barriers, setting ethical standards, and protecting consumer rights for the application of AI technology—these foundational tasks—rather than directly specifying the direction of technological application and paying for it. After all, those who understand the pain points of the service industry best are the thousands of enterprises competing in the market, and the most vital technological applications have always forged their own path in the muddy trenches of market competition.
Disclaimer: The above content is generated by AI and is for reference only.