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

當「會用 AI」變成基本能力之後

在經歷一些浪潮後,開始看到歷史不斷重複,只是每次更換不同的工具或名字。 記得自己學習 Microsoft Office 的時候,很多人排斥辦公室軟體,認為沒必要特別去學。那時候的Office在市場上還有競爭對手,選擇不只一種。但慢慢地,「會用 Office」變成找工作的加分項,許多公司願意花錢讓員工上課、請講師來開班。等到我大學畢業,會用 Word、Excel與Power Point 已是基本職能要求。 網際網路也是一樣。先不談基礎的域名與IP資源分配,在應用上,網路發展初期會架設網站是專業,是可以收費的能力。後來出現架站工具、有現成的模板服務、內容管理工具,慢慢降低架站的門檻。現在,一個使用者只要懂得使用 AI,幾分鐘就能生出一個網站,還可以快速切換版型和配色。 疫情之後,許多公司急著招募「會用 AI」的員工,但因為沒有清楚的標準,招進來的人良莠不齊,之後又陸續裁員。這個過程,跟當年搶招「會用電腦」的員工,幾乎如出一轍。 我自己也在摸索 AI 工具,做一些每天都會使用的應用程式,但我不會說自己是開發者。我也很清楚,有些人對 AI 的認識,還停留在聊天機器人的階段。進一步,可能會用用排程功能,但要做出自己的應用,感覺還是有一段距離。即使工具已經很努力在降低門檻,面對一個空白的輸入框,很多人還是不知道要從哪裡開始。 這讓我想到一件事:每一次新工具出現,都會有一門生意是幫人跨過那道門檻。教人用 Office 是生意,教人架站是生意,出版相關書籍是生意。不是每個人都需要成為專家,但每個人都需要有人扶一把。 最近常聽到有人說,AI 時代最後比的是品味、是判斷力,但品味是「用」出來的,判斷力是撞牆幾次之後長出來的,都是累積下來的經驗。回頭看那些被工具的浪潮淹沒的人,多是因為太晚決定要不要踏進去,多數人只需要工具夠用,夠用來解決自己的問題、完成自己的工作就好。 那 AI 這一波呢? 工具每天都在更新,資訊不對稱的差距愈來愈小。當「會用 AI」也變成基本能力之後,真正稀缺的東西會是什麼? 人類真正需要的,又是什麼?

哪個應用、服務、平台可以代表台灣?

大概 2003、 2004 年,我還是個大學生,那個時候「電子商務」是一門選修課,那個時候台灣還在所謂的電子商務泡沫化中復甦,很多熱極一時的「電子商務」就像今天大家看到的 FTX 事件一樣,一點都不真實,很多執行長、總裁瞬間就失業了,也有很多投資人的錢拿不回來。 看過歷史上的鴻源事件、經歷過電子商務的虛無飄渺時期,再看到 FTX,其實也不會太驚訝。通常泡沫消散後,未來才會到來。 回到大學課堂,穿著輕便但言語犀利的老師談到當時的 Amazon 網路書店,他問大家對 Amazon網路書店的看法,那時的Amazon一直被看壞,所有的媒體都不看好它。甚至會有各種市場傳言,覺得 Amazon會被賣給哪家公司或哪家公司、網路書店會主動併購它。 最後老師說,不會,Amazon書店不會那麼輕易就垮掉,它有其代表的意義。 這個答案給了我很深的印象,我常會問自己,台灣有哪個服務會具有這樣的意義? 偶爾我會問身邊的朋友、同事,對於台灣的哪個服務,會覺得有不能輕易垮掉、要支持它的?我列一下自己所接觸過的,這個世代的應用: 通訊服務:ICQ、MSN Messenger、LINE、Cubie Messenger(台灣,已無服務)、Google Talk、WhatsApp、Telegram、Skype、Signal,還有一些台灣可能較少聽到。 社群平台:Twitter、Facebook、LinkedIn、無名小站(已停止服務,它雖然是Blog,但比較像社群)、Plurk、PTT、Dcard、Instagram、AKASHA、Pinterest Blog平台或架站:Blogger、Wordpress、Drupal 共享書籤 : HemiDemi(已沒有提供書籤服務)、美味書籤delicious 叫車服務:UBER、55688 、呼叫小黄、LINE Taxi、yoxi  當然還有很多是我沒接觸過的,請原諒我的見識不夠廣泛,忽略了哪一個平台、應用或服務。一時想到的大概就這些。有一些服務已經消失或在被併購後就消失了,我也忘了名稱,至於 TikTok 和小紅書,是我不想碰觸的應用服務。 在韓國有 Kakao,日本有 LINE、PayPay,東南亞國家有Grab,中國有自己的網路應用,那台灣呢?之前 KaKao 中斷服務,造成民生應用的線上服務也幾乎中斷,過度集中依賴在一個服務上的確是一個缺點。在和...

女性在防災包中應準備的物品

全球在這幾年地震頻繁,再加上戰爭的陰影愈來愈大,坊間已經有各種災難包的清單作為一般人備災參考,也看到有些廠商會與名人合作,推廣救災包的重要性。我也採購一個以減少準備的成本,但在檢視與思考廠商陳列的物資清單裡,還是少了什麼,特別是如果遇到戰爭時,那些救災包,不論是幫小朋友準備的、幫寵物準備的,看似很棒,仔細想想,比較像露營用的物品清單。 這讓我很沮喪,因為我買了一個還要花更多成本準備急救藥品的防災包。身為女性,我會選擇多備急救藥品及衛生物品,因為那是能保護生命與尊嚴的基本協助。 網站中所販售的急救內容物是備而不用,反而有些必要的物品,如 止血帶 、止痛藥等,可能因為法規管制而沒有被列在販售的急救藥品清單中,但也沒有詳細的列在教學文章中,許多必要的物品都被輕描淡寫的帶過。我雖然已採購該防災包,但仔細想想,那個可能比較像露營用的清單,有點後悔,但我會留著當基礎,再把沒必要的東西改為必要的物品。災難來臨時,我們都只能選擇必要的,而不是選擇想要的。 急救訓練時的經驗 專科時曾與同學接受紅十字會的急救訓練,有一堂課裡,參與的學員們都討論過「物盡其用」這件事,例如在山上突然骨折或不幸出現開放性傷口時,有什麼東西是可以拿來急救使用的?且當災難來臨時,我們只能帶必要的物品離開,也能減少不必要負重,確保行動方便。 我曾檢視過多份清單,但都沒有看到女性必備的物品。有些東西不論在何時對女性來說是必備的:保險套、避孕藥、衛生棉、消毒藥片,有些物品因為國內法規管制,所以不會在販售清單上出現,所以還是需要自己準備。 保險套 :在戰亂或災區,被迫流離失所時,女性容易因性暴力而面臨傳染病或非預期懷孕風險。雖然保險套無法完全保護女性尊嚴,但至少能減少性病與意外懷孕的風險。另一方面,與許多大型儲水袋相比,保險套體積小、攜帶方便,也能臨時裝水,在缺乏乾淨飲用水的環境下派上用場。 避孕藥 :若在災難或戰爭環境中,醫療資源極度不足,女性若意外懷孕,將面臨極高的健康危機。避孕藥雖然在一般通路不易買到,但若能事先向醫師取得處方並納入防災包,就能有效降低非計畫性懷孕。 衛生棉 :一般型的衛生棉也好,或是夜安型(例如34、40公分)的衛生棉,除了生理期使用外,厚實且吸水量大,在臨時缺少紗布或繃帶時,也可用作包紮或止血墊。如果場地髒亂,同時也能暫時保持傷口乾燥,減少感染風險。雖然占空間,但在災難環境中,這些吸水性佳的材...