Here's the thing: Nobody at any top 50 AI lab reads Chinese papers. Academic fraud, machine-translations and citation rings make the signal to noise ratio to low to bother.

related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28107614

The article brings up a number of good points about advances in research from China, but the article also says:

In 2020, China topped the U.S. for the first time in terms of the number of times an academic article on AI is cited by others

Via Nature:

In China, one of the main indicators currently used to evaluate researchers, allocate funding and rank institutions is metrics collected by the Science Citation Index (SCI), a database of articles and citation records for more than 9,000 journals. Since 2009, articles in these journals written by authors from Chinese institutions increased from some 120,000 a year to 450,000 in 2019. Some institutions even pay researchers bonuses for publishing in them.

These practices have incentivized researchers to publish lots of papers at the expense of quality, says Jin Xuan, a chemical engineer at Loughborough University, UK. Evidence suggests that the focus on metrics has also driven a rise in inappropriate practices, such as researchers submitting plagiarized or fraudulent papers, or inappropriately citing their own or a colleague’s work to boost citations.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00574-8#ref-CR1

Is there some other objective measure of progress in any type of research that can be used to make such comparisons?

Godharts law in action. I think the problem is less that the metric is insufficiently tolerant of being gamed, as it is the research institutions are not sufficiently policing the researchers.

And how much of that research is stolen from US?

And how much of that is stolen from UK mathematics?

idk I ask you