Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

Ban The Books: Censorship Demands Reach Record Numbers, The … – Athens Messenger

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada

Zip Code

Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe

See the article here:
Ban The Books: Censorship Demands Reach Record Numbers, The ... - Athens Messenger

Ukrainian journalists protest army censorship of reporting on the … – WSWS

The National Union of Journalists of Ukraine has appealed to the Armed Forces of Ukraine over its severe restrictions on reporting in combat zones of the countrys stalled NATO-backed counteroffensive.

The appeal comes in the wake of a report by French newspaper Le Temps that the Ukrainian government had effectively banned all foreign journalists from visiting the front unless they had received personal permission from the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Valery Zaluzhnyi, a known admirer of the Ukrainian fascist Stepan Bandera.

As the head of the National Union of Journalists of Ukraine Serhiy Tomilenko reported on Facebook on Wednesday, In recent days, the National Union of Journalists of Ukraine received numerous appeals from accredited journalists regarding severe restrictions on the work of mass media at the front. In particular, the media claim that the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine has now completely banned filming in the combat zone, any coverage of special and foreign equipment, and the admission of the media to positions and command posts.

Tomilenko noted that the National Union seeks to protect the interests and rights of journalists and requested thatthe General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine offer answers to several questions concerning the restrictive ban on journalists working at the front.

In particular, it is important for us to hear answers to the following questions: what contributed to such a large number of restrictions for accredited journalists regarding the coverage of events at the front? Do all these prohibitions apply only to our Ukrainian colleagues or to foreign ones as well? (The National Union has received reports that priority for work in the war zone is being given to representatives of foreign mass media), Tomilenko wrote.

Tomilenko couched his appeal in pro-war nationalist terms, prostrating his organization before the right-wing government of President Volodymyr Zelensky. He claimed, In fact, all these bans make it impossible for media representatives to show Russian aggression, tell and write about it, as well as highlight the heroic resistance of the Ukrainian defense forces to the occupiers.

In the Le Temps article, Ukraines Deputy Minister of Defense Hanna Maliar claimed that the bans were a matter of operational security and cited an air attack on Ukraines 82nd Brigade that allegedly occurred in response to a Forbes article published from the front.

Maliars lying claims are typical of government officials who seek to both justify their attacks on democratic rights and cover up their own responsibility for the mass death of workers and youth. During the second Iraq War, the administration of President George W. Bush banned coverage of coffins of US soldiers returning from Iraq.

In reality, Ukraines Western-backed counteroffensive was destined to fail and result in mass Ukrainian casualties against an entrenched and well-fortified Russian army, a fact that was well known by the CIA and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, as investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported last week.

According to Hershs sources, the counteroffensive propaganda was a show by [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky and there were some in the administration who believed his bulls..t.

Rather than operational security, the fact that the Zelensky government has cracked down further on its censorship of the front is further confirmation that Zelenskys vaunted counteroffensive is slow and bloody, as the Wall Street Journal admitted earlier this week.

Since the start of the counteroffensive in June, over 5,000 pieces of military equipment have been destroyed. It is estimated that at least 40,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed, and undoubtedly tens of thousands more Ukrainian soldiers are permanently disabled or disfigured.

While the Ukrainian government has intensified its restrictions as of late, censorship of journalists has been the policy of the NATO-backed Zelensky government throughout the course of the war.

Earlier in March, in the run-up to the ongoing counteroffensive, the Armed Forces of Ukraine updated its policy on journalists access.

Donate to the WSWS 25 Year Fund

Watch the video of workers internationally explain why you should donate to the WSWS.

From now on, the commanders in the areas of responsibility will determine the zones for the presence of media representatives by their decisions. The following zones are provided: green, where the work of accredited media representatives is allowed without the accompaniment of a public relations officer or a press officer; yellow, where media representatives are allowed to work only accompanied by a press officer; and red, where the work of accredited media representatives is prohibited, the Armed Forces representative Bohdam Senk stated.

The change was also protested by journalists at the time who objected to the arbitrary and restrictive nature of the red zones, which they claimed were being applied to even peaceful areas.

As the Ukrainian Institute for Mass Media reported about the protest, Members of the Media Movement, Ukrainian and foreign journalists declare the inadmissibility of the new excessive restrictions on the work of the media during martial law. Zoning as it is introduced by operational-strategic groups of troops actually makes it impossible for journalists to work not only along the entire front line, but also in peaceful settlements.

The increasing mass censorship of journalists has been noted even by publications that generally support the war and the relentless US propaganda of unprovoked Russian aggression.

As Luke Mogelsen, a contributing writer at the New Yorker, told the Intercept in June, Ive covered four wars, and Ive never seen such a chasm between the drama and intensity and historic import of the reality of the conflict on the one hand, and the superficiality and meagerness of its documentation by the press on the other. Its wild how little of whats happening is being chronicled. And the main reason, though not the only one, is that the Ukrainian government has made it virtually impossible for journalists to do real front line reportage.

The Zelensky governments blatant attack on freedom of the press and its systematic undermining of any factual and honest reporting on the war not only exposes, yet again, the lie that the imperialist war waged against Russia in Ukraine is about democracy. It also underscores that nothing that is reported in the official pro-war media about what is happening in Ukraine can be taken at face value.

The World Socialist Web Site is the voice of the working class and the leadership of the international socialist movement. We rely entirely on the support of our readers. Please donate today!

View post:
Ukrainian journalists protest army censorship of reporting on the ... - WSWS

Google, YouTube accused of censoring Erdogan critics – Nordic Research and Monitoring Network

Levent Kenez

Media outlets and journalists who express criticism of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan are facing a noticeable decrease in their visibility on YouTube and Google. Additionally, there has been a substantial decrease in the viewership of content produced by critical media outlets. At first, this trend was ascribed to waning political engagement among supporters of opposition parties following Erdogans re-election on May 28. Nevertheless, suspicions have since arisen that algorithmic methods are being employed to enforce a kind of censorship.

Particularly on YouTube, the most influential factor affecting the viewership count of a program is the recommendation to users. This is determined by an algorithm based on viewers previous habits, subscriptions and search history, which then presents videos on the home page. If a video is not recommended on the YouTube homepage, the likelihood of that video receiving a large number of views is significantly low.

Investigative journalist Adem Yavuz Arslan, who moved to the United States due to pressure from the Erdogan regime, has stated that readers have informed him that his YouTube channel is not being recommended. Arslans channel has been banned by the government in Turkey, but the video can be watched if the link is clicked. Arslanshared on X, formerly known as Twitter,that a viewer recounted being unable to access the video despite receiving a notification about the upload of a new video.

Blent Korucu, a prominent Turkish journalist who currently resides in exile in Sweden, co-hosts a morning program every day on the TR724 YouTube channel. While he considers the decline in interest following the elections to be a natural occurrence, he remains unconvinced that the plunge in viewership can be exclusively attributed to this factor. Speaking to Nordic Monitor, Korucu voiced his concerns, stating, It appears that weve lost the engagement of three out of every four viewers, a trend that strongly hints at some form of external interference. The Erdogan regime has imposed a spectrum of censorship measures, but arguably, this situation ranks among the most severe. Our broadcasts unfold in real time, fostering an interactive rapport with our audience. Even the most loyal viewers complain about the difficulty of accessing the broadcast. Ironically, algorithms are designed to tailor recommendations according to viewer preferences and habits.

Not only exiled journalists but also outlets critical of the governmentin Turkey have complaints about YouTube and Google. Secular television channel Halk TV claimed in a broadcast this week that it has been subjected to censorship by Google. According to the channel, restrictions on Halk TV within Googles News and Discover applications have intensified even further since the elections. The visibility of Halk TV news on Google experienced a significant decline, reaching a nearly 50 percent drop. Additionally, Halk TV alleged that Google favors pro-government channels. For instance, despite searches for Halk TV being approximately 300 percent more than those for pro-government CNN Trk, Google prominently features CNN Trk by 52 percent more than Halk TV in news-related searches.

Another media outlet lodging complaints against Google is the Szc newspaper. According to the paper, they are subject to a concealed form of censorship by Google. In a statement, Szc claims that Googles News and Discover applications have been giving more prominence to media organizations with known government affiliations while reducing visibility for independent media for some time. Following the elections in May, this situation became even more perplexing.

The decline in visibility of Szc on Google that began before the elections gained momentum after the elections. The visibility of Sozcu.com.trs news dropped from levels of around 20-25 million to below 10 million, the statement says.

It is no secret that the Erdogan government, which controls almost all media outlets in Turkey, is unhappy with critical content, especially that published abroad, on social media and plans to build a legal mechanism that censors critical posts and videos.

Since 2019 the Erdogan government has successfully introduced several bills in parliament that posed significant sanctions threats to social media platforms. The government aimed to regulate these platforms through penalties and access bans. Moreover, the government employed a sort of carrot-and-stick strategy by advertising heavily on these platforms, in addition to using the threat of punitive measures, to exert its influence.

Google was the first global company to announce that it would cooperate with the government. Nordic Monitor previouslyreported that Gnen Grkaynak, who represents Google and its YouTube service as well as X in Turkey, said in a statement in parliament that he managed to break the hesitation felt by global social media companies to comply with the new Turkish law, which was adopted to further clamp down on criticism of the Erdogan government.

I can proudly say that [Google] was one of the first companies to [comply with the new law], Grkaynak told lawmakers on December 2, 2021, bragging about how his client rushed to meet the demands of the Turkish authorities.

As you can imagine, when such legislation is passed at a time when there was hesitation from the viewpoint of international firms such as Who will do what, should we be the first to do it or not, what will the effects be? we think Googles stance by taking such a step [to appoint a representative] on January 12, 2021 set an example in terms of efforts to comply with the legislation, he added in his statement to the newly established parliamentary Committee on Digital Outlets.

Originally posted here:
Google, YouTube accused of censoring Erdogan critics - Nordic Research and Monitoring Network

Letter: BCSC should put students right to read before censors … – The Republic

From: Lisa Ingellis

Columbus

As a concerned parent and graduate of BCSC schools, could we stop pandering to the extreme and divisive factions of our society? Bills have been filed in states like Arizona and Texas that allow for fining teachers for telling the truth while obliterating requirements to teach about slavery and the writings of Martin Luther King Jr. Whats next? Burning books because we dont like whats in them? Well, maybe.

As The Republic mentioned in an Aug. 23 article on the recent school board meeting, the board has planned a working session Sept. 11 to discuss policies around library books. This policy review comes after the board received a petition calling for the school board to implement standards for profanity and vulgarity across the Bartholomew County K-12 schools.

I watched the school board meeting livestream on Aug. 21 so my daughters, both students, could hear the discussion regarding the selection of materials for school libraries. There were some ridiculous points made by some speakers drawing laughter from my kids, namely referring to books in our libraries as porn and objecting to teacher/student relationships due to pedophiles working in public schools. All of this disappoints and saddens me, especially in light of increasing amounts of censorship around the United States. I want my kids to have the same access to a diverse array of literature that I had. I also want them to continue to be taught real, accurate history, and not some version that makes a small group feel better about themselves.

Interestingly, the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) and American Library Association (ALA) have developed guidelines for handling formal complaints to school library collections, which are meant to safeguard students First Amendment rights by limiting the ability of community members of school boards to exercise content- or viewpoint-based censorship. BCSC has an existing policy that seems to be somewhat in alignment with this. Both national organizations recommend community members complete formal reconsideration requests in writing to school principals, and that schools form reconsideration committees, made up of teachers, librarians, school administrators and members of the community, who receive training in intellectual freedom and library policies, before they read, discuss and collectively reevaluate the availability of a particular book in the school. ALA guidelines make clear that committee members are to set aside their personal beliefs and use objective standards, and that books are to remain in circulation until the process is complete and a final decision is made.

Lets avoid the embarrassment experienced in Hamilton County recently as they went off the rails in banning a number of excellent pieces of young adult literature, including The Fault in Our Stars by John Green. I sincerely hope committee members, principals, superintendents and school boards here will act with the constitutional rights of students in mind. Namely, knowing it is better to allow access to literature for those who might want it than to eliminate access for all based on the concerns of any individual or faction.

See the article here:
Letter: BCSC should put students right to read before censors ... - The Republic

Generative AI law attempts to balance censorship and R&D – University World News

CHINA-GLOBAL

However, to the surprise of AI and technology experts, while Chinas generative AI regulations outline areas of restriction, they are not as limiting for researchers in universities and companies as some initial drafts circulating earlier this year had proposed a signal that China is keen not to stall research in this area.

The Chinese government considers its AI industry and continued technological innovation to be central to its economic development and strategic interests.

Described as interim regulations on generative AI, in advance of Chinas more comprehensive AI regulations expected at the end of this year, the current version, first unveiled in July, a month before coming into effect, outlines 24 measures.

They stress that generative AI products must be in line with Chinas core socialist values and only legitimate data sources should be used in developing generative AI products.

In a key departure from an earlier draft released in April, some provisions will not apply to research and development. These include an exemption from registering and obtaining licences for generative AI programmes that are at the research stage, and from other restrictions that kick in for software designed for use by the general public.

The interim measures are designed to promote the development of generative AI applications, said Luo Fengying, an official at the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), Chinas overarching internet regulator. He noted the rules were specific to generative AI, and that other AI applications such as autonomous driving were not subject to the measures.

Only generative AI services that are open to the public are affected. The research and development projects that enterprises, universities and research institutes are working on are not affected, Luo said this month, shortly before the generative AI rules came into effect.

Luo noted that a major bottleneck in the development of generative AI is datasets, and the focus of development work would include converting massive data into data that can be used for training large language models (LLMs), the AI algorithms that use huge data sets to recognise, translate, summarise and generate human-like content.

Others said work on datasets would nonetheless have to conform to existing security regulations on algorithms, which came into force in 2021 also seen as a global first in regulation of this area and data handling, which already apply to universities and research organisations.

CAC, which in the past focused on content moderation, is still developing its own technical expertise to assess such advanced algorithms, and some university experts have questioned whether it has the capability to properly assess cutting-edge generative AI work.

In the past CAC would have just shut down software programmes it deemed to be a security risk for China, but the new regulations make it clear the aim is to foster development of generative AI, a Hong Kong-based expert, speaking on condition of anonymity, said.

Importance of state security

Experts looking closely at the new Chinese regulations said filtering undesirable information is still the main pole of the Chinese regulatory approach published jointly by CAC, together with the ministries of education, science and technology; industry and information technology; and public security, as well as the broadcast authority.

Universities and research organisations will still need to ensure they train LLMs on datasets that do not contain information deemed sensitive by the authorities and they will not be exempt from other state security provisions in the new regulations.

The interim regulation states that all research and development organisations must adhere to core socialist values and not generate any content that incites the subversion of state power and the overthrow of the socialist system, endangers national security and interests, damages the interests of the country, incites secession from the country, undermines nationalist unity and social stability, promotes terrorism, extremism, national hatred and ethnic discrimination, violence, obscenity and pornography.

Academics note that concepts such as endangering national security and interests, or damaging the interests of the country are broad and undefined.

Denis Simon, a China science and technology policy expert who leaves his current position at the University of North Carolinas Kenan-Flagler Business School at Chapel Hill in the United States at the end of August, told University World News: If youre a foreign scholar, or someone conducting research and want to deploy some of these technologies, you have to realise that you could come up against a Chinese review process that could interpret your actions as being inconsistent with the intent of the law.

The use of any of these technologies to subvert the state, to paint China in a bad light or to create disunity all of these are a part of that law designed to make sure that unanticipated uses of the technology don't come back to haunt the political leadership in ways that could be disruptive or create instability in the country.

We will have to be careful because this is virgin territory, and its not just virgin territory for China, its virgin territory for all countries who have yet to fully grasp what these technologies are going to mean, Simon said, adding that in China the notion that these technologies could get out of control is of even more concern than in the United States or elsewhere.

Chinas national interest

Rebecca Arcesati, lead analyst at the Mercator Institute for China Studies in Berlin, Germany, said: We need to appreciate that China is ahead in regulating generative AI. China has taken some of the earliest and most ambitious steps at regulating AI in the world.

While designed not to stifle innovation, the new regulations aim to nudge the design and deployment of Chinese LLMs towards alignment with their [Chinas] national interest, she said.

CAC, the primary agency responsible for Chinas great firewall and online censorship and which tends to see matters solely through a national security lens, has nonetheless seen that it needs to balance control and censorship with freedom for technological development, she said.

This came after the European Parliament, which discussed the European Unions draft artificial intelligence law in June, agreed that AI systems developed for the purpose of scientific research and development should be exempted from restrictions designed to limit negative impacts of AI, while suggesting a full ban on AI systems used for biometric surveillance, and predictive policing, among others.

The EU rules are not expected to be finalised before the end of this year, but experts said such exemptions for research had not escaped Chinese regulators attention.

What's interesting in Chinas case is that they put the regulatory framework in place before letting companies launch those powerful models, Arcesati said, while the drafting of laws in Europe, for example, is struggling to catch up with fast-moving developments.

A lot of the large language models coming out of China have come out of research labs, with some collaboration with companies, Arcesati said. But she noted that institutions such as the Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence (BAAI) a collaboration between leading AI companies, universities and research institutes, as well as universities such as Tsinghua in Beijing have put out some of Chinas most high performing LLMs.

The Chinese government is very much interested in regulating those actors as well, because theyre the ones doing some of the most interesting work on large models, she said.

Developments within China

As a first mover, Chinas generative AI law is attracting a great deal of attention globally. Theres a lot of concern about how its going to affect the trajectory in terms of the application and use of AI around the overall economy and the higher education and research system in China, Simon told University World News.

After the initial competitive frenzy earlier this year following the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022, Chinas generative AI race appears to have slowed, experts said.

Simon said Chinas progress in generative AI is being moderated and is still in the experimental phase.

China has sought to bring in regulation before generative AI use becomes widespread and, in its eyes, out of control. Although companies have registered large numbers of algorithms with CAC as part of the pre-screening process for licensing, CAC only approved the first public-facing Generative AI services on 31 August two weeks after its new law came into effect.

It approved the much-awaited Baidu ChatGPT-like Ernie Bot which saw over three million downloads of its app in its first two days, and several others including state-backed services Zhipu AI and ChatGLM.

Smaller companies and generative AI start-ups have mushroomed. China lists over 100 AI companies deemed capable of producing services similar to ChatGPT. But they have found training LLMs for accuracy to be prohibitively expensive, so that a lot of development of the underlying technologies is being done by universities and government-funded research institutions, according to experts.

Weve seen around 79 large language models already emerging from China, although a lot of them were developed but not released to the public, Arcesati said. All those models will probably be developed for domestic use, trained on domestic datasets, which is also important for natural language processing, because you need Chinese language sources for the models to then work in Chinese.

Some smaller developers have already aligned their chatbots to security rules. For example, chatbots will end a conversation if sensitive words are mentioned.

Some LLMs at an advanced stage of development for example, Baidus Ernie Bot and Alibaba Groups Tongyi Qianwen, are still in beta versions or are for business use only, in part awaiting regulatory clarity. Companies are still working towards bringing these products to the mass market.

BAAI this month made its BAAI General Embedding model open source, free for anyone to use. Tech giant Alibaba has also made its models, based on Tongyi Qianwen, open source for scholars, researchers and companies to use for free. Such moves are seen as a way to extend the reach of LLMs in the competitive sector.

Bifurcation

Chinas early move on regulation and its increasingly separate development in the area of generative AI in the face of US technology restrictions could have an impact on how the global generative AI landscape evolves.

Within China the trend is towards large language models, foundational models that are developed in China by Chinese companies, Arcesati said.

On top of China not wanting to allow ChatGPT for censorship reasons, the underlying OpenAI model isnt available for Chinese developers to use and, for that reason, were seeing an interesting bifurcation where, instead of a monopoly where you just have OpenAIs ChatGPT-4, you have different countries [systems], she said.

Simon said: If China is in the ascendancy and its influence internationally is growing, the wider question is: will the global norms and the value system and protocol move in a direction more in alignment with the Chinese approach, rather than the previous democratically oriented approach of the West?

Qiheng Chen, honorary junior fellow on technology and economy at the Asia Society Policy Institutes (ASPI) Center for China Analysis, and a senior analyst at US economic consulting firm Compass Lexecon, speaking at an ASPI webinar on Chinas generative AI on 24 February, also raised concerns about global bifurcation whereby countries with more open governance systems access US technologies and Western governance of AI, while governments that maybe have a demand for censorship technologies will resort to Chinese companies to fulfil that demand.

Looking through the lens of geopolitics, I am quite worried that were going to see a bifurcation of the AI ecosystem one that is US-led and one that is China-led. However, we wont see much interaction between the two, not just in terms of talent and technology, but also in terms of governance, Chen said.

Other participants in the ASPI webinar suggested this bifurcation was already happening, with additional implications for decoupling research collaboration in AI between the US and China, which in the past made a huge contribution to global progress in AI.

US restrictions

However, according to Simon: The main question here isnt so much Chinas data regulations but what will happen next in Washington with export restrictions, because we are expecting the Biden administration to tighten export controls [to China] even further.

US export controls on high-performance semi-conductor chips since October last year have had a dramatic negative effect on many Chinese high-tech companies engaged in AI research and development. However, Simon noted that the Biden administration prevents US chip companies like Nvidia from selling to China, even its less advanced chips developed precisely to comply with export controls.

They [the US] are tightening the screws more and more. And that will make it very hard for Chinese companies to access the hardware that they need to train those [large language] models, Simon said.

This article was updated on 2 September 2023 to reflect CAC approval on 31 August of several Generative AI services for public use.

Original post:
Generative AI law attempts to balance censorship and R&D - University World News