跳至主要內容

To Regulate or Not to Regulate? About AI technology

圖片
作者：

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. 

Labels:

留言

發佈留言

請勿匿名留言，待審核後才會出現。

此網誌的熱門文章

女性在防災包中應準備的物品

作者：
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...
發佈留言
閱讀更多

停不下來的更新

作者：
一直更新Blog的版型，我必須承認是一件很無聊的事，不過這次除了版型的更動外，連分類和文章內文也做了變動。 先說分類吧！在Blogger叫做Label，不過，Blogger在分類上有一些bugs，只能使用英文，以前這裡的分類大多都是中文分類，結果在link上就是一堆亂七八糟的亂碼，所以我把它改成英文，同時細分一些項目，把出版的文章和一些教學的文章分開來，雖然已經很久沒寫新的，不過既然放上來就做個分類。然而就在新舊label移轉之後，發現中文的label還會存在，而且還會出現莫名奇妙的幽靈數字，Blogger知道這是個bug，不過似乎一直沒有修復的跡象。所以在分類上就出現了如右圖一般的情況，在英文標籤裡會有文章，但是在中文標籤裡是沒有文章出現的，但奇怪的是，有些中文標籤已經不見了，然而在Beauty-Beta這個部落格裡，我也做了分類上的變動，由於以前用英文開頭的Label，所以在label的變動上倒是不用擔心會有這樣的情況。 再來是文章的內容，把以前的文章重新分類，標題前面的一些全形符號或是分類刪掉，除了一些比較特殊的，我會留著，例如壹陸壹，因為在label裡為了統一，我留著原本的E61，但人家的店名是壹陸壹，所以留下文章標題前面的中文分類，另外像是Entertainment項目裡，可能有音樂，可能有電影，就會在前面留下中文分類。 前簡單的CSS和HTML改成現在的XML，這無疑是讓我們再多學些東西，能有時間鑽研當然是好事，可是轉換後，我一直沒有時間去改，當然多半也是因為懶，到現在也是拿別人做好的版型去改配色而已，所以像裡面的設定、安裝的widget和analytics的javascript都要一個一個重新裝，上個星期幾乎每天都弄到天亮才睡，只為了整理這個blog。也因為之前在blog裡放了technorati的分類，所以還要修改以前的文章，把它們加入technorati，還有裡面的語法要更改，所以這個星期甚至下個星期都會一直收到這裡的更新訊息，對於不斷收到訊息干擾的朋友們，在這裡說聲抱歉。 在版面上因為blogger系統在feed接受上的更新，所以還有四個東西沒加進去，分別是最近的文章（Recent Post）、Comments（目前是用別人寫的widget）還有GVO的feed訂閱顯示、Beauty-Beta的訂閱顯示也都還沒放上去。 在Feed訂閱上，以前bl...
發佈留言
閱讀更多

Reflections on Google's Sherman Act Violation Ruling

作者：
When the US Department of Justice announced that Google Search Engine violated the Sherman Act, the message made me think of the US lawsuit against Microsoft regarding the Internet Explorer case . It was a long process, and I just remembered the case result. How many people still remember the case and the result? Then, I read some articles that support Google's perspective. Google said the company doesn't sell or charge for the search engine service, so the US DOJ's market definition and relevant market are improper. Enforcing antitrust laws in the digital age is a complex task. The authorities are aware that some traditional antitrust tools are no longer sufficient. They need innovative solutions to tackle the unique challenges posed by digital issues. While some concepts remain the same, old-school theories and toolkits need to be updated to effectively regulate the digital market. While Google may not charge for its search engine services, it does profit from ranking sea...
發佈留言
閱讀更多