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AI給你營養建議:台灣《營養師法》還沒想過的法規空白

之前分享利用 Claude Code 做 飲食營養分析 Bot 的經驗 。我自己有個習慣,就是在做新的專案時,會先評估法遵風險。當我在做飲食營養分析 Bot 時,我才知道原來台灣除《醫師法》外還有《 營養師法 》,而《營養師法》第 12 條列舉營養師的法定業務,包含營養評估、飲食設計、個案諮詢、膳食管理等。 這部《營養師法》在幫大家的健康把關,因為不能隨便一支影片、一段報導,就能提供營養建議。在法規中,需要接受完整的專業教育,並持續進修,每 6 年就要提出繼續教育的證明文件,才能更新執業證照;沒有「營養師」的證照不能自稱「營養師」,法規中列舉了營養師的業務範圍,並規定須親自執行業務,不能由他人代理,如果藉由通訊方式執行業務,還要經過執業登記的主管機關核准;執行業務時還要做紀錄,這些紀錄可能還會成為法律或醫療紀錄文件。 成為「營養師」需要符合嚴格的要求與限制,並不是隨便用AI分析、讓AI提供建議就能取代的。台灣每年會舉辦 2 次營養師的考試,參考自中華民國營養師公會在 2025年的統計資料 ,台灣每年營養科系的畢業生約 1500 人,到 2025年,累計已有 11,860 人通過考試取得執照,及格率約 25%,看起來是一個具有挑戰性的考試。 Bot 的個人化建議,算不算「執行業務」? 在我設計的 Bot 裡,不是只有拍照上傳讓 AI 去分析、評估,事實上還有其他情境的飲食需求,再提供使用者建議,例如由 Bot 提醒當天攝取的蛋白質不足,或我在前篇文章中提到的鈉的攝取量過高,Bot可能提醒要減少鈉的攝取或是多補充哪些蛋白質來源,這些分析與建議是否算「執行業務」?在該法第 29 條中也寫明,如果沒有取得營養師的資格而執行相關業務,本人及其雇主各處新臺幣 5 萬元以上,25 萬元以下罰鍰。 法律規範的對象是「人」,目前法律還沒有明確定義 AI 工具的法律地位,也不知道該找誰負責,是開發的工程師?大語言模型的公司?還是開發的公司?一般開發者通常會在提供的資訊裡加上「僅供參考、非醫療建議」的免責聲明來規避,但無從得知這樣的聲明在法律是否具有效力。另外,由於在 Bot 中可以設定慢性病的個別飲食計算,還可能同時踩到《醫師法》(涉及診療)與《營養師法》(涉及個案管理)。同時,即使開發者已在服務中加入「僅供參考、非醫療建議」的免責聲明,主管機關或法院在判斷是否構成營養師業務的執行時,...

用Claude Code做一個AI飲食營養分析Bot:從拍照辨識到條碼查詢的實作筆記

沒想到在十多年後,因為想做飲食營養控管,所以自己利用 AI 開始做一個簡單的食品營養分析工具,能分析我每餐的飲食是否充足或過量,並提供有依據的飲食建議。 最初的雛形是基於以往曾參與「 Food Open Data 」倡議的經驗,我希望用最簡單的方式,拍照-->AI辨識與分析-->提供建議,然後統計一段期間的營養攝取狀況。 最初的想法 當我把我的雛形想法告訴 AI 後,Claude Code 很快的就幫我設計好雛形、教我如何申請Telegram Bot,這些步驟都寫得很清楚,整個雛形做好不用半天,我還愣住了,怎麼可能這麼簡單?難怪那些應用程式公司只把飲食營養分析當作一個「附加功能」,主要目的是蒐集其他的生理監測資料,但這些公司蒐集資料的用途,我自己在處理過美國資料經紀公司所販售的資料隱私資訊後,這是值得關心的議題,但不在此篇文章裡討論。 不過,我只專注在飲食分析項目,我覺得這個功能如果可以做好,再想想其他的。最初的想法很宏大,因為家人與自己患有慢性疾病,所以特別針對某些族群設計,但事實上,如果沒有實際的使用情境,可能也無法做出符合需求的產品。 於是我把這個Bot的使用者只鎖定在我自己的飲食分析上,那就簡單多了。 工具與環境限制 我在今年已經改用 Claude Cowork 與 Claude Code 協作,雖然 Claude Code 有一般介面版,但我大多數時間都開著終端機視窗使用 Claude Code,這樣比較能專心工作。 基於使用工具的習慣,我使用 Claude Code 開始建置,當時的模型雖然已經有Opus 4.8,但Sonnet 4.6已綽綽有餘,而後來出現的Fable 5 則用在其他專案裡。 因為只做給自己用,所以選擇最簡單的 Chatbot 形式;也因為我希望可以自由的使用而不是提供過多的個人資料給其他平台,選用 Telegram Bot,而不是台灣人常用的 LINE Bot ,而且 LINE上太多廣告,根本不想開它。 在衡量經濟現實及自我管理資料的想法後,目前這個 Bot 與資料庫只放在我的電腦裡,沒有上雲端,當電腦休眠、網路斷線時,Bot就會停止工作。 雖然只是給我自己使用,但我還是要求資料庫是加密儲存的,匯出資料時也必須加密。 台灣的飲食文化很多元 我不是開發者、也不是營養師,我自己也沒使用過其他的應用程式,所以無從理解在開發飲食營...

[music]聆聽夏天最後的時光

再兩天就是夏至,一年中白晝最長的一天,過了夏至,白晝開始變短,漸漸就要走入秋天,接著一年又過去了。 我尋找著適合夏天聆聽的音樂,從久石讓到佩爾特,再回到Ryan Farish,突然想聽點人聲,不是小野麗莎的Bossa Nova,也不是Gilberto,這個夏天很浮燥,容易低潮。接著就看到ppaper no.46裡介紹的兩張專輯,分別是Bebel Gilberto的 Momento 和Traincha的 Look of Love: Burt Bacharach Songbook 。在幾經比較後,選擇了Traincha。 有一首歌叫Close to You,有很多個版本,第一次聽到是在壹陸壹由Anna Caram所唱的版本,我非常喜歡這首歌,慵懶的聲音配上輕鬆的音樂,很多人唱過,可以聽聽看以下由The Carpenters演唱的版本: 會買這張專輯還有其他的原因,在聽過專輯後,我問偉展:「有沒有很古老的感覺?」他說:「老007都出現了(不知道他說的是不是羅傑摩爾)。」這的確是一張充滿 古老 歌曲的一張CD,唱片全名是 Look of Love: Burt Bacharach Songbook 小標是 the Finse in Jazz Since 1939 即向Burt Bacharach致敬,由荷蘭女伶Traincha演唱由Burt Bacharach所作的歌曲,有些聽起來還真是很有disco的感覺。 夏天心情悶的時候的確適合聽一點人的聲音,ppaper裡是這麼寫的:「家居生活不可或缺的音樂」,這張專輯比較懷古,多數是抒情的沙發音樂,如果想要有海邊或是墾丁那種輕快又慵懶的感覺,選擇Bebel Gilberto是比較適合的,畢竟人家是Gilberto嘛!有誰能拒絕在夏天的星空下聆聽The Girl From Ipanema呢?這首曲子大概是蟲鳴之外我會想在夏夜裡聆聽的曲子。 在Look of Love: Burt Bacharach Songbook這張專輯裡,還特別喜歡一首 That's What Friends Are For ,裡面的吉他弦音配合歌詞,特別令人容易掉進回憶的思緒,以下大概是Traincha的現場表演錄影,影片有點晃,聽音樂就好,很棒: 我最喜歡的歌詞如下: Keep smiling keep shining Knowing you can...