Search

Begin New Search Topic Artificial Intelligence Publication Year within 1 Year

21. Data Disquiet: Concerns about the Governance of Data for Generative AI

Author:
Susan Ariel Aaronson
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)
Abstract:
The growing popularity of large language models (LLMs) has raised concerns about their accuracy. These chatbots can be used to provide information, but it may be tainted by errors or made-up or false information (hallucinations) caused by problematic data sets or incorrect assumptions made by the model. The questionable results produced by chatbots has led to growing disquiet among users, developers and policy makers. The author argues that policy makers need to develop a systemic approach to address these concerns. The current piecemeal approach does not reflect the complexity of LLMs or the magnitude of the data upon which they are based, therefore, the author recommends incentivizing greater transparency and accountability around data-set development.
Topic:
Accountability, Transparency, Artificial Intelligence, Data Governance, and Large Language Models (LLMs)
Political Geography:
Global Focus

22. Machine-Learning Theory and Its Policy Implications

Author:
Naod Abraham
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)
Abstract:
The goal of this paper is to present an intuitive summary of computational learning theory, and its application for analyzing the most popular learning algorithms in machine learning, neural networks. This paper assumes no mathematical background or knowledge of machine learning from the reader. Throughout the paper, the important sections are presented using a pyramid approach (that is, in three levels). After introducing each major idea/topic, its policy implications and connection to Canada’s law are discussed. Finally, a summary of Canada’s relevant artificial intelligence law, with a case example, is given.
Topic:
Artificial Intelligence, Digital Policy, Emerging Technology, and Machine Learning
Political Geography:
Canada and North America

23. Tracing the Roots of China’s AI Regulations

Author:
Matt Sheehan
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
In 2021 and 2022, China became the first country to implement detailed, binding regulations on some of the most common applications of artificial intelligence (AI). These rules formed the foundation of China’s emerging AI governance regime, an evolving policy architecture that will affect everything from frontier AI research to the functioning of the world’s second-largest economy, from large language models in Africa to autonomous vehicles in Europe. U.S. political leaders often warn against letting China “write the rules of the road” in AI governance. But if the United States is serious about competing for global leadership in AI governance, then it needs to actually understand what it is competing against. That requires examining the nuts and bolts of both China’s AI regulations and the policy process that shaped them. This paper is the second in a series breaking down China’s AI regulations and pulling back the curtain on the policymaking process shaping them. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Chinese government started that process with the 2021 rules on recommendation algorithms, an omnipresent use of the technology that is often overlooked in international AI governance discourse. Those rules imposed new obligations on companies to intervene in content recommendations, granted new rights to users being recommended content, and offered protections to gig workers subject to algorithmic scheduling. The Chinese party-state quickly followed up with a new regulation on “deep synthesis,” the use of AI to generate synthetic media such as deepfakes. Those rules required AI providers to watermark AI-generated content and ensure that content does not violate people’s “likeness rights” or harm the “nation’s image.” Together, these two regulations also created and amended China’s algorithm registry, a regulatory tool that would evolve into a cornerstone of the country’s AI governance regime. Contrary to popular conception in the rest of the world, China’s AI governance regime has not been created by top-down edicts from CCP leadership. President Xi Jinping and other top CCP leaders will sometimes give high-level guidance on policy priorities, but they have not been the key players when it comes to shaping China’s AI regulations. Instead, those regulations have been the product of a dynamic and iterative policymaking process driven by a mix of actors from both inside and outside the Chinese party-state. Those actors include mid-level bureaucrats, academics, technologists, journalists, and policy researchers at platform tech companies. Through a mix of public advocacy, intellectual debate, technical workshopping, and bureaucratic wrangling, these actors laid the foundations for China’s present and future AI regulations. This paper traces the progression of these regulations through the “policy funnel” (see figure 1) of Chinese AI governance. For both recommendation algorithms and deep synthesis rules, the initial spark for the regulation came from long-standing CCP concerns about the creation and dissemination of online content. For the former, the rise of the algorithmically driven news app Toutiao threatened the CCP’s ability to set a unified narrative and choose which stories are pushed to readers. In the case of deep synthesis, online face swap videos grabbed the attention of the Chinese public and led government regulators to consider the threat of deepfakes. Over the course of 2017–2020, these concerns made their way through China’s bureaucracy. Regulators took a series of stopgap measures in specific applications, while also tasking policy analysts and government-adjacent technical organizations with exploring different regulatory interventions.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Governance, Regulation, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
China, East Asia, and Asia

24. The risk of artificial intelligence: China edition

Author:
Filip Jirouš
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for the Opening and Development of Latin America (CADAL)
Abstract:
We should be worried about China’s AI capacities, not only because it enhances the powers of the Party-state, but also because it is exporting its population control technology and policy abroad.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Governance, Authoritarianism, Surveillance, Artificial Intelligence, Social Control, and Threat Assessment
Political Geography:
China and Asia

25. Economic arguments in favour of reducing copyright protection for generative AI inputs and outputs

Author:
Bertin Martens
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) models have stirred considerable controversy about copyright protection for AI training inputs and model outputs. The European Union’s AI Act will require model developers to be transparent about their use of training inputs such as text, images and music. The EU Copyright Directive allows free text and data mining of these media inputs unless copyright holders have opted out and want license payments. The right to opt-out amounts to economically inefficient overprotection of copyright. Free use of media content for GenAI training does not affect media sales to consumers. Optouts only strengthen the bargaining position of copyright holders, who decide depending on their private interests. That generates windfall profits without any increase in consumer surplus or social welfare. The licensing of training inputs reduces the quantity of data and the quality of GenAI models, creates transaction costs and reduces competition between GenAI firms. This slows down GenAI-induced innovation in media products and production processes, and productivity gains in all service sectors that apply GenAI. Ultimately, it slows down economic growth compared to what it could be with competitive and high-quality GenAI. Bargaining over license pricing is arbitrary as there is no objective revenue benchmark to start from. Defenders of the moral right to remuneration argue that any arbitrary remuneration is better than no remuneration. But this private moral right comes at the expense of social welfare. The ongoing bargaining and court cases between media producers and GenAI developers risk entrenching this market failure in jurisprudence. Early regulatory intervention and elimination of opt-outs for GenAI training, or weakening them in AI Act implementation guidelines, would solve this. There is no need for copyright on GenAI outputs either. GenAI reduces the marginal cost of machine-production of media outputs to close to zero, on par with the marginal cost of reproduction. That eliminates incentives for piracy. Moreover, composite human-machine outputs benefit from a de-facto extension of copyright on the human component.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Intellectual Property/Copyright, European Union, Regulation, Economic Growth, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
Europe

26. Exposure to generative artificial intelligence in the European labour market

Author:
Laura Nurski and Nina Ruer
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Bruegel
Abstract:
We apply two sets of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) occupational exposure scores – one task-based, one ability-based – to the European Labour Force Survey. While using different methodologies, our findings reveal consistent demographic patterns across the two approaches: jobs held by women, highly educated and younger workers are more exposed to GenAI technology in Europe. We also review the literature on the recent productivity impact of GenAI. Within the same occupations, less-experienced or less-skilled workers consistently get the largest productivity gains from GenAI support. We argue that a task-based analysis is more fruitful than an ability-based one, both for guiding GenAI adoption in organisations and their workplaces, and for assessing the employment and job quality impact on workers. Finally, we provide policy recommendations that can help workers (ie the labour supply) adjust to technological disruption, such as providing training and social safety nets. But we go further by also suggesting policy interventions that could redirect future labour demand towards better jobs, by promoting job redesign and organisational agility. Monitoring GenAI’s employment effects and researching the ‘jagged technological frontier’ is necessary to further build our understanding of the employment impact of this transformational technology.
Topic:
European Union, Artificial Intelligence, Labor Market, and Supply and Demand
Political Geography:
Europe

27. The 4IR and the Future of the North Korean Police State

Author:
Ken Gause
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
The term Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) has gained widespread acceptance as the overarching concept used to describe the impact of new technologies on various aspects of society in the early 21st century. Technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), 5G networks, 3D printing, cloud computing, robotics, drones, VR, AR, IoT, genomics, biometrics, and blockchain are commonly associated with this revolution. The speed, scope, and profound influence of 4IR technological advancements are unprecedented in human history. This revolution is rapidly progressing and transforming nearly every industry globally, as well as all aspects of societal life (Watson 2020). The technologies listed are often considered part of the current wave of emerging technologies that are expected to help human societies tackle global issues such as disease, poverty, and ignorance. Despite its promise, there are also shadowy aspects of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. It is widely acknowledged that technology has the potential to foster human progress and advancement, but it also has the capability to exert control over individuals. In George Orwell’s novel 1984, the character Winston takes precautions to avoid detection by the telescreen in his home while writing in his diary out of fear of facing severe consequences. The concept of being monitored by a “Big Brother” figure is not a new one, yet in today’s era of the 4IR, this dystopian narrative may resonate with a sense of unease and familiarity. The rapid advancements in technology could pave the way for, or may already be facilitating, a form of surveillance and control reminiscent of totalitarian regimes seeping into the daily lives of certain nations. In nations like China and Russia, we have witnessed widespread implementation of increasingly advanced surveillance systеms in order to maintain control, monitor the activities of citizens, and suppress opposition and threats to their authority. These countries have also established an international model for the utilization of digital technologies for such purposes. This paper will briefly examine how coercion, control, surveillance, and punishment by the North Korean Police State will change in the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the AI revolution. Will new technologies make the Kim regime’s control more effective, or will they enforce reforms and shifts in North Korean society? Will 4IR lead to transformation inside North Korea and create a pathway to reunification?
Topic:
Artificial Intelligence, Police State, and Fourth Industrial Revolution
Political Geography:
Asia and North Korea

28. Knowledge State in the Era of Generative AI and the Future of the Korean Peninsula

Author:
Chaesung Chun
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
Korea failed to transform into a fully modern sovereign state when modern international politics was being established. Traditionally, the Korean Peninsula was a single nation and state. However, as the Westphalian modern state systеm, originating in the West, was introduced in the form of imperialism, Korea failed to become a fully sovereign state, ultimately leading to its division. The causes of this division include external factors such as the competition among surrounding empires and Cold War rivalry, as well as internal factors like the fragmentation of state-building capabilities. However, the most significant reason was the civilizational gap, as Korea could not fully absorb and follow the new civilizational standards set by the West after the Industrial Revolution. The current world order is at a turning point following the unipolar era of the United States. While the Western Westphalian domain is maintained, the core element of the liberal international order is being significantly challenged by revisionist states like China and Russia, as well as countries from the Global South. It is uncertain whether global politics will form and maintain a single integrated sphere (권역) or divide into multiple regions experiencing fundamental conflicts. If modern international politics, standardized by Western civilization, were to fragment again, the division of the Korean Peninsula could deepen based on this regional separation. The recent intensification of strategic alliances between North Korea, China, and Russia illustrates this situation. A crucial phenomenon in this process is that the Fourth Industrial Revolution and emerging technologies are redefining the international political order. Unlike previous technological advancements, current technological progress is characterized by enabling technologies or meta-technologies that define the direction of technological development. Generative artificial intelligence, in particular, exemplifies the innovation of these foundational technologies. The role and function of generative artificial intelligence, which significantly impacts military, economic, social, cultural, and governmental governance capabilities, are just beginning. The future development of foundational technologies will have a critical impact on the international political order and the development of various diverging regions. Countries, companies, societies, and international organizations that quickly adapt to these technological changes will advance further, while those that do not will face deepening material and perceptual gaps. Considering the unification of the Korean Peninsula, the current stage of digital technology development in the North and South has maintained ethnic homogeneity and power balance to a level that can aim for unification. However, as new foundational technologies like generative artificial intelligence grow, the development paths, power balance, ethnic homogeneity, and differences in state forms and functions between South and North Korea will likely deepen. If unification is a goal based on a certain degree of homogeneous historical experience and similarity in state systеms and societies, the possibility of such similarity is decreasing. South Korea, as a liberal democratic state with the world's tenth-largest economy, a close alliance with the United States, and an innovative social and corporate atmosphere, has the capacity to rapidly absorb and disseminate artificial intelligence advancements throughout society. In this context, South Korea strives for economic development, international cooperation, and social and cultural innovation. In contrast, North Korea is an exceptionally poor country on a global scale, an unprecedentedly dictatorial state, and maintains its state through strong repression of society. In this context, it is difficult to expect societal innovation, and the acquisition and dissemination of new technologies are solely state-driven, with technological innovation also being state-led. In the increasingly polarized international technology supply chain, North Korea will find it challenging to find alternatives other than relying on China and Russia. North Korea is also striving to develop foundational technologies like artificial intelligence, but its direction will be very different from South Korea's. North Korea utilizes artificial intelligence for strong repression, control, and surveillance of society and aims to use open-source artificial intelligence for political intervention in South Korea and hacking and illegal manipulation in the international community. As the civilizational standards and technological gaps, political systеms, and socio-cultural perceptions between the South and North widen, what will be the future of the power balance and systеmic homogeneity between the two Koreas? Will South Korea's advanced national capabilities increase the possibility of unification with North Korea, or will artificial intelligence act as a larger element of conflict between the two Koreas? It is necessary to recognize and respond to these issues.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Governance, Artificial Intelligence, and Unification
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, and North Korea

29. Negotiating technical standards for artificial intelligence

Author:
Bart Hogeveen, Arindrajit Basu, Isha Suri, and Baani Grewal
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)
Abstract:
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) is delighted to share its latest report – the result of a multi-year project on Artificial Intelligence (AI), technical standards and diplomacy - that conducts a deep-dive into the important, yet often opaque and complicated world of technical standards. At the heart of how AI technologies are developed, deployed and used in a responsible manner sit a suite of technical standards: rules, guidelines and characteristics that ensure the safety, security and interoperability of a product. The report authors highlight that the Indo-Pacific, including Australia and India, are largely playing catch-up in AI standards initiatives. The United States and China are leading the pack, followed by European nations thanks to their size, scope and resources of their national standardisation communities as well as their domestic AI sectors. Not being strongly represented in the world of AI governance and technical standards is a strategic risk for Indo-Pacific nations. For a region that’s banking on the opportunities of a digital and technology-enabled economy and has large swathes of its population in at-risk jobs, it’s a matter of national and economic security that Indo-Pacific stakeholders are active and have a big say in how AI technologies will operate and be used. Being part of the conversations and negotiations is everything, and as such, governments in the Indo-Pacific - including Australia and India - should invest more in whole-of-nation techdiplomacy capabilities. Authored by analysts at ASPI and India’s Centre for Internet and Society, this new report ‘Negotiating technical standards for artificial intelligence: A techdiplomacy playbook for policymakers and technologists in the Indo-Pacific' - and accompanying website (https://www.techdiplomacy.aspi.org.au/) - explains the current state of play in global AI governance, looks at the role of technical standards, outlines how agreements on technical standards are negotiated and created, and describes who are the biggest ‘movers and shakers’. The authors note that there are currently no representatives from Southeast Asia (except Singapore), Australia, NZ or the Pacific Islands on the UN Secretary-General Advisory Body on AI – a body that’s tasked to come up with suggestions on how to govern AI in a representative and inclusive manner with an eye to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The capacity of the Indo-Pacific to engage in critical technology standards has historically been lower in comparison to other regions. However, given the rapid and global impact of AI and the crucial role of technical standards, the report authors argue that dialogue and greater collaboration between policymakers, technologists and civil society has never been more important. It is hoped this playbook will help key stakeholders - governments, industry, civil society and academia - step through the different aspects of negotiating technical standards for AI, while also encouraging the Indo-Pacific region to step up and get more involved.
Topic:
National Security, Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Artificial Intelligence, Emerging Technology, and Standards
Political Geography:
Australia, Asia-Pacific, and Indo-Pacific

30. How Multimodal AI Could Retool Global Crisis Response

Author:
Ben Ellencweig, Jessica Lamb, Jon Spaner, and Mihir Mysore
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
Imagine this future scenario: as a hurricane develops, both its intensity and the timing of landfall are recalculated every hour on desktop-grade computers. The nature of the impact, including noncorrelated crises that may occur and second-order effects of the hurricane, are modeled through multiple scenarios on city-scale digital twins that have property-level granularity. The output of these simulations results in a clear set of trigger-based action plans that are tailored, verified through human-in-the-loop mechanisms, and sent to emergency responders, community leaders, government agencies, and potentially even residents in affected areas. Community leaders have access to tools that allow them to understand what to expect, what resources to leverage, and what actions may make the most difference. Homeowners receive targeted suggestions of how to protect their assets, avoid falling victim to fraud, and navigate post-disaster support. Disinformation campaigns get countered by fact-based automated outreach.
Topic:
Security, Science and Technology, Crisis Management, Artificial Intelligence, and Disinformation
Political Geography:
Global Focus