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

[movie]虛偽、傲慢與人性--Dogville

片名:厄夜變奏曲DOGVILLE 導演:拉斯馮提爾Lars von Trier 演員:Nicole Kidman… IMDB 花絮:厄夜的告白(Dogville Confession) 續集:命運變奏曲(Manderlay) 目前桌上放著的,是《在黑暗中漫舞》和《命運變奏曲》,克制著自己不要接著看下去,雖然我覺得看完再寫會比較完整,特別是看完《命運變奏曲》。昨晚已先看了《厄夜變奏曲》的花絮,在拍完這部電影後 Nicole Kidman還是沒能再接下去演《命運變奏曲》。 如果沒看過這部電影的人,不建議再繼續看下去,免得壞了看電影的興緻。 這部電影共分為九幕和一個序,沒有任何的「場景」,像是舞台劇般的在每一幕開始時有旁白,所謂的場景則象徵性的在攝影棚的地上劃出房子的地基、動物;在實體場景上,只有商店有門和展示櫃,看不見的McKay家有片落地窗,醫生有藥櫃,作家有書桌,七個孩子的果農家有張床和黑板…每個實際存在的物品都代表了住在那一「格」的居民的職業和對他們最重要的事物。也許因為沒有了場景,演員的表現反而被突顯了出來,劇情更容易讓人印象深刻。 在「序」這一段裡介紹了Dogville和裡面的人物。在第一幕到第五幕裡,從Grace來到這個貧瘠的村莊,而村長Tom的行為與用意也讓人難以忍受,到此為止,大部份村民看起來是善良的,如同在序中介紹的善良正直。雖說在看電影前已經有人提醒我要小心電影情節的黑暗面,在第六幕開始時也有字幕提醒,但在看到第六幕時就想關掉了。因為從這一幕開始,才開始看到什麼是人性,而從第六幕開始,才是真正的人生。 「傲慢(arrogance)」是最常出現在電影中的字詞,當Grace與Tom相遇時,她對Tom表示她必須自己教育自己,所以必須處罰自己不能進食;在第二幕裡,Grace認為Tom很「傲慢」而傲慢是不對的,一直到最後,第九幕,她到了車上依然與父親爭論「傲慢(arrogant)」。從車上兩個人的爭論裡,名字代表優美、優雅Grace終於顯露了她的本性: The Big Man:…but I, I call them dogs… Grace: The dogs only obey their nature. Why shouldn't we forgive them? 直到最後,她的決定讓整個村子燒光只剩下一隻狗,而她原諒了那隻連肉骨頭也不願施捨給她...

關於花精的FAQ(4)--使用篇

這部份有十六個Q & A,內容很多,我想應該可以解決在使用花精上最常見的疑問。 花精是芳香療法嗎?是保養品嗎?是藥品嗎? 花精應該算是順勢療法的一種,可以外用也可以食用,不能說是保養品,因為沒有保養品用在皮膚上的直接效果,可以確定的是,花精並不是藥品也不含所謂藥品的效用,但它確實能藉由自花朵萃取出來的能量來平衡人心中的負面情緒。 花精買回家之後要怎麼使用? 通常買回家的花精我們被稱為Stock Bottle,裡面有濃度較高的酒精,所以只要放在陰涼處通常可以放很久,但是如果你的居住地方較悶熱,還是建議放在冰箱裡會比較恰當。平常我們在使用的被稱為Treatment Bottle,調配方式如下: 你要先有一個30ml的玻璃瓶,要有滴管,可以少於30ml,買回家後先用沸水煮5分鐘。注意滴管部位的塑膠不要放到熱水裡。 在已消毒過的30ml玻璃瓶中加入礦泉水或是乾淨的飲用水。 從每個花精的Stock bottle裡各取出兩滴花精加到這30ml的瓶子裡。 每天喝四次,每次取四滴,加入水或是飲料裡,或是直接滴四滴到嘴巴裡。 如果你要搭配急救花精的話,加入Treatment Bottle中的急救花精是四滴,其他的花精還是以每種兩滴為主。 我已經有使用其他的花精了,我可以混用巴哈花精嗎? 原則上是不建議。像是如果你本身已經有澳洲花精的急救花精,就不建議再混合巴哈花精的急救花精。 花精在調配上最多幾種?可不可以三十八種全用? 一般而言一瓶Treatment Bottle裡最多不超過六種花精,因為太多的花精可能會讓你看不清楚自己真正需要的是什麼?也解決不了根本的問題,可能短期內改善了某種情緒但長期而言是沒有改變的,也有可能會互相抑制。但因為每個人的情況不同,有些人可能只需要一種或兩種;有些人可能需要調配到七種或八種,甚至有些人需要三十八種全部,當我們真正的了解自己的情緒問題出在哪裡時,就知道適合的花精到底有哪些,再慢慢的排除掉不需要的花精。 用錯花精會不會有不良的影響? 不會,花精是很溫和的東西,簡單的就成份上而言,它就是水而已,頂多加上了白蘭地防腐,特別一些的說法是,花精多了自然界的能量。花精所改善的是我們的負面情緒或是較黑暗的性格,如果選擇了不適合的花精也不會有什麼不好的影響。 如果我已經有其他品牌的急救花精,而且還有很多,我一定要再重新買巴哈急救花精嗎? 不用,選擇最適合自己...

法制追不上AI:缺乏台灣AI基本法子法,公務員使用生成式AI的五大風險

昨晚看新聞,現任台北市長拋出一個政策宣示:未來公務員將配給自動化的AI工具,讓台北市政更「前進」。台北市資訊局也已快速推出 CiviClaw,目標是 2027 年讓每位公務員都能無門檻使用 AI。 這樣的政策方向讓我感到憂心。長期觀測各國個資保護規範的我清楚知道:台灣的個人資料保護主管機關至今仍是「籌備處」,尚未正式運作;《個人資料保護法》的修法呼聲雖久,AI相關條款卻付之闕如;《人工智慧基本法》已於今年1月施行,但高風險AI認定標準的子法至今仍是空白。 有網路、有 IoT 不等於智慧城市,有 AI 當然也不等於智慧城市,應該重視制度能否承接工具帶來的責任。 歐盟已明確禁止業者使用 AI 推測員工或學生的心理狀態;美國聯邦政府要求採購 LLM 時廠商必須提交模型卡與資料卡;韓國 AI 基本法的子法早已配套生效。這些都是台灣政府在推動配給公務員 AI 之前,必須正視的制度差距。 以下我與大家分享長期觀測的內容,由AI協助整理資料: 歐盟:從禁令到揭露義務的多層規制體系 歐盟的AI治理框架是由多部法律疊加起來的立體架構,最底層是2018年施行的 GDPR,處理的是個人資料如何被蒐集、儲存、使用的基礎規則,再來疊是2024年生效的《人工智慧法》(EU AI Act,下稱 AI 法),建立不同風險等級分類管理AI系統,從禁止使用到高強度監管、再到一般透明度義務,形成不同層次。最新的一層則是仍在立法程序中、但主要架構已確立的 Digital Omnibus ,試圖修補 AI 法與 GDPR 之間的規範衝突。 AI 法第50條是最直接影響生成式AI服務的條款,自2026年8月2日起全面適用。根據這條規定,凡是讓使用者與AI系統互動的業者,必須主動告知對方「正在與 AI 互動」,而不能讓人誤以為面對的是真人。AI生成的文字、影像、音訊等內容,還必須以機器可讀的格式加上標記,使平台與監管機關得以溯源辨識。與此同時,AI法第14條要求高風險AI系統必須設計成「可由自然人有效監控」的形式,確保機器的決策不會在缺乏人工審核的情況下直接作用於當事人。 AI法所稱的「高風險 AI 」,涵蓋的場景比一般想像的廣。依該法附件三列舉,生物辨識系統、關鍵基礎設施管理、教育與職業篩選、就業與人員管理、信貸與社會福利申請審核、執法、移民邊境管制,以及司法審判輔助,都在高風險範疇之內。這些場景的業者必須進...