跳至主要內容

To Regulate or Not to Regulate? About AI technology

I borrowed the title of the forum this afternoon. Actually, I attended two webinars about AI today. 

One forum focused on the debate about regulating AI development in Taiwan. The discussion was fruitful, as the panellists shared their experiences and knowledge about different AI regulations across various countries. Besides Taiwan, they discussed the European Union, the US, Korea, and China. Korea, for instance, published their "Act on the Development of Artificial Intelligence and Establishment of Trust" (AI Basic Act) at the end of 2024. However, before this, the Korean government had already established good data governance through three essential acts: the Personal Information Protection Act, the Network Promotion Act, and the Credit Information Act. These laws, along with their MyData applications, built a strong foundation for strategies like the Data Dam, a centralized platform for securely collecting, storing, and processing large-scale data, which supports AI development and innovation.

Taiwan published the AI Basic Bill last year. However, concerns remain about increased regulation leading to higher compliance costs and slower technological development. The government hopes to develop a large language model to protect traditional Chinese characters and culture. This effort is led by the National Science and Technology Council and NARLabs, which developed the TAIDE model. One team member mentioned encountering copyright issues during development. Should we enact more regulations, or should exemptions be considered for fostering technological innovation?

Notably, in December 2024, the Italian data protection agency fined OpenAI 15 million euros for breaching regulations. Additionally, OpenAI faces copyright infringement accusations in several countries.

In the last five minutes, there was a brilliant sharing about the algorithm collusion. I'd like to pay more attention to this issue since I know the International Competition Network (ICN) published a document about the responsibility of algorithm collusion price fixing or conspiracy. The lawyer, Mr. Wu tends to support the free market, he believes the market has the mechanism to recover and balance. The government is the invisible hand, when the market is normal, the government should not interfere with the market. That is my notes about Mr. Wu's sharing. I hope future sessions will delve into the algorithm and competition issues, as defining algorithmic conspiracy behaviour is both critical and fascinating.

Personally, I lean toward avoiding excessive regulation at this stage, prioritizing establishing boundaries for protecting human rights and children while lowering compliance costs.

Regarding global perspectives, I am uncertain about the regulatory approaches of different governments. At the AI Summit and AI Global Forum in Korea last May, governments seemed inclined toward strict AI regulation. However, if Trump returns to the presidency, will the US tighten or loosen its control over AI technology development? I remain undecided.


At the Webinar by the DiploFoundation

This may be the first DiploFoundation webinar of 2025. At the end of 2024 and the beginning of 2025, I received numerous forecasts about antitrust and competition trends. However, I am more interested in Internet governance and diplomacy.

About the Global Digital Tax

I heard updates about the latest progress in digital tax discussions. While the OECD has been negotiating with various countries, progress seems slow and potentially fraught with challenges.

About the UN IGF, WSIS+, and GDC

I did not have much time to attend the UN IGF 2024. I only managed to participate in one Policy Network on AI session and one Best Practice Forum on cybersecurity.

Memorizing the WSIS+ and Global Digital Compact (GDC) is challenging, especially since Taiwan has limited participation in these meetings, resulting in a lack of information for its citizens. As a result, I rarely engage in discussions during WSIS+ and GDC sessions.

The AI application in DiploFoundation

The DiploFoundation showed its AI applications at the UN IGF 2024. I saw their AI analysis of conference records and the knowledge graph. People don't need to review the video again, just read the summary and the notes are enough. 

Jovan Kurbalija also shared the new application on the blog at the end of the webinar. After reading his blog post, readers can leave comments in the comment box. The chatbot can simulate the writer and talk to you. That is fascinating and makes a blog more active, not only full of text and static. 

留言

此網誌的熱門文章

為什麼我支持《數位中介服務法》草案

在經歷許多次反抗台灣政府所立的網路相關法案後,我其實沒想過除了《數位通傳法》草案外,我還會再支持另一部法律草案,雖然 《數位通傳法》草案還壓在某處,但如果有人讀過《數位通傳法》的草案,再讀這部《數位中介服務法》草案,就會知道這部草案的重要性,而且也可以顯示台灣網路使用者的成熟度,更重要的,這是我第一次看到引入國際網路治理多方利害關係人機制的法律草案,而且是用在正確的地方。 有興趣想知道我在讀法條時的筆記和當下的感想,可以看我這則  Tweet 。這篇不使用逐條讀法條的方式來寫,因為那會讓人昏昏欲睡,我也不去比對歐盟《數位服務法》,因為我在讀《數位服務法》草案時,該草案特別強調是加強歐盟 E-Commerce Directive  ,而不是取代它,而且更多著重在預防盜版、仿冒,保護消費者的法案。所以當有輿論提到參考自《數位服務法》的《數位中介服務法》草案限縮言論自由時,我其實是一頭問號的,但一直到今天我才有時間讀《數位中介服務法》草案,這篇文章出自於我的個人經驗和閱讀法案的心得,與擔任的職務無關。 如果最近注意一下網路的資訊,有幾件事該注意一下: 有許多人在社群平台,如Facebook或是其他網路看到一些廣告,而這些廣告可能是要你支持台灣農產品、台灣製的產品,結果你收到時,上面還寫著簡體字,通常這是所謂的一頁式廣告詐騙,而行政院的消費者保護會在 2019 年時就有新聞稿在警告「 一頁式廣告詐騙多 小心查證保障多 」,之後像公視或是其他單位都有相關的活動在提醒大家小心這類廣告。但目前這些廣告其實多數不易處理,因為不容易取證、保留證據,等到追查到時已經找不到對方了。 有不少親密照片與影片在情侶分手後,被報復性的上傳到情色網站或透過即時通訊傳到親友的帳號裡,或是被洩露個資,遭到公開的霸凌。 之前有一個專題:「 青春煉獄:網路獵騙性私密影像事件簿 」,光是讀完這個專題報導我就覺得受傷。 有人使用 Deep Fake 把台灣名人的臉部照片合成至色情影片再上傳至色情影片平台,今年 7 月才被判刑。 還有許多創作者藉由網路分享作品時,被人盜用,甚至有國外的使用者修改台灣人的作品去參與比賽還獲獎。 有一次打電話問某個部會,如果消費者在國外電子商務平台買東西,但資料被外洩怎麼辦?雖然政府願意協助,但衡量至國外打官司的時間和成本,就會讓人卻步。 有些行為在現實世界裡有法...

台灣成立個人資料保護委員會的重要性

我在2018年6月7日去聽 PChome 的詹宏志董事長的 演講 ,他在演講中提到過去PChome被 DDoS 攻擊的事件。當他知道公司網站受到攻擊時,他不知道該向誰通報,只好藉由他的人脈網來尋求協助,當然也取得協助,並在他的考量下,儘量降低對公司聲譽、消費者權利的風險。 台灣發生過的真實案例 當我聽到這個經驗後,心中一直有個疑問:「當大企業遇到 DDoS 時,有內部資安管理人員全力處理。但若中小企業遇到 DDoS 時,除多功能的資訊服務團隊外,又該如何應對?」  2007年的博客來網站因為金馬影展的售票資料庫因為人為疏失,造成大量個資外洩,但因為當時的《電腦處理個人資料保護法》(即現在的個資法)還不是很完善,所以對當時的博客來而言並未有很嚴重的懲罰。 之後隨著網路愈來愈普及,網站因遭受攻擊造成資料外洩的事情愈來愈多,從會員資料庫外洩到癱瘓公司系統甚至導致醫療系統或網站癱瘓。,大家也開始藉由網路媒體教學,當自己的資料外洩,或是私密影像被惡意傳播時,就會先去警局報警備案。 在台灣,因為各目的事業主管機關的權責範圍不同,在沒有成立數位發展部(數位部)前,網路商店發生資料外洩時,可能會先找經濟部、國家通訊傳播委員會(NCC);在成立數位發展部後,就把所有責任給數位發展部。讓我很感慨的是2023年的 醫指付個資外洩事件 ,就看著衛福部、經濟部、數位部、金管會四個部會互踢皮球,都不認為自己是應該負責的目的事業主管機關,最後由金管會處理。 歐盟GDPR實施後對全球企業的影響 台灣的人權團體長久以來不斷倡議台灣需要獨立的個人資料保護機構,這件事我一直都沒忘,甚至是在討論 《數位中介服務法》 草案時,這部法的草案已經將個人資料保護機構應做的事已規劃至其中。可惜的是因為政治操作,這部法案就被遺忘了。 我在 2022 年開始蒐集全球個資保護與隱私保護的案件及觀察全球人工智慧、個人資料法規發展,我觀察到,台灣與收集的案例的最大不同處在於,與其他國家比較,台灣沒有獨立的個人資料保護單位,自然當其他國家在談資料跨境傳輸協議、人工智慧發展政策與規劃時,台灣沒有對等的單位可以參與討論,也許數位部同時身兼這樣的角色,但就不是前段所提到的「獨立」的權責機關。 歐盟的GDPR自 2018 年 5 月開始實施後,許多國家開始思考擁有資料保護及所有權的重要性而紛紛立法外,GDPR也對全球企業造成很...