Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Department of Commerce Could Be the First US Entity To Broadly Regulate an Aspect of AI (qz.com)

Posted by msmash on from the up-next dept.

Dave Gershgorn and Max de Haldevang, writing for Quartz: Artificial intelligence technology has the capability to be the most impactful software advance in history and the US government has no idea how to properly regulate it. The US does know that it doesn't want other countries using its own AI against it. A new proposal published this week by the Department of Commerce lists wide areas of AI software [PDF] that could potentially require a license to sell to certain countries. These categories are as broad as "computer vision" and "natural language processing." It also lists military-specific products like adaptive camouflage and surveillance technology.

The small number of countries these regulations would target includes a big name in AI: China. Donald Trump, who has placed tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of Chinese goods as part of a simmering trade war, has long railed against China's alleged theft of intellectual property. This proposal looks like a warning from US officials, just as Chinese president Xi Jinping aims to boost AI in his own country. "This is intended to be a shot across the bow, directed specifically at Beijing, in an attempt to flex their muscles on just how broad these restrictions could be," says R. David Edelman, a former adviser to president Barack Obama who leads research on technology and public policy issues at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

51 comments

  1. Re:Also regulate YOU PEOPLE BULLYING ME... apk by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    There are safe spaces you can go to not be bullied and censored.

    On Facebook, Twitter or Reddit, nobody would ever hurt your feelings.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  2. Real AI by alvinrod · · Score: 1

    Any real AI (as in it's what we would classify as intelligent in the same way we might consider an animal intelligent) would have to be so general purpose that it could be adapted to the types of things that the government wouldn't want to sell, even if it didn't have that purpose originally. If you've got something that only works for a particular application (say NLP) but nothing else, it's not really artificially intelligent. It's just a very sophisticated algorithm (maybe that no one understands all that well), even if it was developed with so-called AI techniques.

    Even then I don't think it will be a problem. Almost everything is being sold as a fucking cloud service these days, so unless foreign governments want to send potentially secret information to U.S. companies, I don't think there's a lot of worry about anyone exporting a lot of this stuff.

    1. Re:Real AI by mikael · · Score: 1

      If you look at human brain architecture through fMRI and diffusion tensor analysis, it's the same architecture as a supercomputer. Neural bundles carry information to and from the body into the brain. There are various data flow pipelines to process audio, vision (what and where), touch (temperature, pressure, motion), position and movement. Something like around 1800 cortical units that actually interlock with each other, do particularly processing from one type to another (image->name, name->sound, sound->object, object->purpose, sound->text, text->action).

      Each of these process conversions has a dual-use. It could be used for a car entertainment system, but it could also be used to assist fighter pilots or tank drivers and missile operators. TCP/IP is a type of AI that reroutes data traffic from one system to another even when nodes are lost in a mesh network.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    2. Re:Real AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      perhaps you would be better off trying to develope natural intelligence in GOP supporters first.

    3. Re:Real AI by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      as in it's what we would classify as intelligent in the same way we might consider an animal intelligent

      I don't think that's a useful standard. The government does not prohibit selling any kind of animal due to its intelligence, for instance. General purpose weak intelligence (such as in animals) isn't nearly as dangerous as highly intelligent in a narrow field.

  3. remember ITAR? by layabout · · Score: 4, Insightful

    export regulations worked so well with crypto...

    1. Re:remember ITAR? by DickBreath · · Score: 2

      Especially when you could publish a crypto textbook, with detailed explanations and source code; then anyone could freely carry that text book across borders out of the country with no problem.

      Apparently the US government didn't want to get into meddling with banning textbooks of higher learning. That would have gone over well.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    2. Re:remember ITAR? by bigpat · · Score: 1

      export regulations worked so well with crypto...

      That was almost a complete fiasco. It hobbled US academia and US based software with export of fully functional US software effectively banned putting us at a big disadvantage. A lot of open source software projects moved overseas as the US didn't ban imports of that technology and it was just easier to host overseas.

    3. Re: remember ITAR? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One difference between crypto and "AI" is that AI involves a lot of training data so if you prohibit exporting the data and models, you still slow down other countries even while you publicly share the algorithms.

  4. Utterly Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, AI doesn't exist. It's a marketing term. The best we can hope for in binary computing is SI (Simulated Intelligence). The terms Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning are a great way to explain things like matrix operations to the masses but "intelligence" and "learning" they are not. It's just clever programming by smart people.

    It's laughable even at the notion that it could be regulated by any government agency where the bottom of the barrel software engineers exist because they failed everywhere else and needed an automatic paycheck. What are they going to do? Scan through source code? Idiots.

  5. Vague by DickBreath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > require a license to sell to certain countries. These categories are as
    > broad as "computer vision" and "natural language processing."

    Can they be any more vague?

    What do they mean by 'technologies'? Do they mean finished products? Or code available on GitHub? What if the GitHub code is not "sold" ? Do they mean training data sets? Or specific trained neural nets that can be loaded into compatible hardware (or software) to run it and recognize things?

    Computer Vision or Speech Recognition (not 'natural language processing') are basic tech, like microprocessors, or fuel injectors. Like not selling them any sheet metal which could be used to make missiles used against us, instead of using it to make dish washers.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    1. Re: Vague by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh chill out or I will release the hounds (they are friendly unfortunately)

    2. Re:Vague by jofas · · Score: 1

      What do you expect from a Quartz article on tech? I mean, the phrase "Because China" precedes the headline.

    3. Re:Vague by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Natural language processing is not speech recognition you utter pleb.

    4. Re:Vague by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Which is the much more difficulter problem? Speech Recognition or Natural Language Processing? Perhaps they actually meant NLP. I assumed they meant SR because of the mention of Computer Vision -- OMG!! The Chinese might get Computer Vision. SR is the harder problem because it is difficult to understand what one says when one's mouth is full.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    5. Re:Vague by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 2

      Which is the much more difficulter problem? Speech Recognition or Natural Language Processing?

      Spelling, obviously.

    6. Re:Vague by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      You forgot grammar too. "much more difficulter"

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  6. Bad advice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's a nazi cuck. People are going to give him a hard time on twitter and tumblr.

    ZIP

    1. Re:Bad advice! by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      People on twitter and tumblr always demonstrate the highest levels of respect for other individuals.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  7. The threat of AI is so Overrated. by jellomizer · · Score: 1, Interesting

    AI isn't very smart, its only redeeming value, is it is relentlessness in its calculations. While we as humans can only work on a problem for a few minutes a computer can sit there for years working out a problem, and not get distracted.
    We as humans find shortcuts to allow us to adapt much more quickly to a changing environment. An AI system may take 6 months to learn how to make a Robot Walk on a flat plain. While it would take a human over a year to walk on a flat plain. However with that AI System, you then give new factors such as a Hill, or gravel or Ice, It will take another 6 months to figure it out. While the human will be able to adapt to the change within minutes, even without past experience.

    AI is good for simple jobs, that we as humans really don't like to do too much. Just because they bore us.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:The threat of AI is so Overrated. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About a decade ago, top AI researchers were asked how long until computers would be able to defeat top Go players. The average response was about 50 years. Look where we are now.

      There are chips in development that can accelerate neural networks 1000 faster (per watt) than existing GPU cards, thus bringing artificial neural networks near human intelligence on desktop computer technology. The secret is merging the computational logic with the memory so that they are on the same chip. That technology will be available to developers and then to consumers, and it may happen sooner than anyone of us can predict.

    2. Re:The threat of AI is so Overrated. by Kulahan · · Score: 2

      Surprising that someone on a tech-based website would feel confident saying that because some form of tech isn't particularly effective today, it's not worth a second thought.

      If you think we won't ever refine the way AI crunches through data sets, or that we won't even refine the hardware it runs on, or that we won't refine the methods used for gathering data that it runs through, you're not really in the right state of mind to even begin talking about AI.

      Maybe AI can figure out how to walk a robot across a plane in 6 months, and maybe it really would take another 6 months to compensate for ice (which isn't true, but that's besides the point). In 50 years, that might take 6 minutes and another 6 minutes instead. Humans will still be at a year for that initial solution.

    3. Re:The threat of AI is so Overrated. by neoRUR · · Score: 1

      I usually find that the people that say it won't work are the same people that understand the least about the technology and how it all really works at a detailed level.

      Real AI systems will be here a lot faster than people think.

  8. Re: Also regulate YOU PEOPLE BULLYING ME... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I for one am SHOCKED to see apk whining like a little bitch.

  9. "Alleged?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...has long railed against China's alleged theft of intellectual property...

    In other breaking news, water is allegedly wet and grass is allegedly green.

  10. Computer Vision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like some people don't want to enable the poorer countries to improve their basic industrial capability and increase their well-fare on their own. Horrible though: poorer countries becoming independent of foreign aid! Or being able to surveil their forrest fires or guard their borders..

    1. Re:Computer Vision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor countries need not be concerned with securing their borders...

  11. Should Not Use "I" by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    No non-living thing should be programed to use the word "I."

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
    1. Re:Should Not Use "I" by DanDD · · Score: 1

      That's rather short sighted of you. If I invest in a rather expensive piece of technology that has the capability to be self-aware, I'd like to be able to have a conversation with "it" regarding it's health, maintenance, and mission priorities.

      I suggest you watch Bicentennial Man, based on an Asimov story: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0...

      "I, Robot" is another good one. So is "Terminator".

      --
      "Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
    2. Re:Should Not Use "I" by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

      You recommending fiction as your argument.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
    3. Re:Should Not Use "I" by DanDD · · Score: 1

      Yes, I do.

      Fiction is what inspired humans to harness the atom for both nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons (H.G. Wells, "The World Set Free")

      Fiction inspired the cell phone, the laser, earbuds, robots, and self driving cars.

      Fiction is a form of literature. Literature explores and enhances the human condition.

      I am prepared to explore the definition of humanity in both literature and in the real world. Are you?

      --
      "Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
  12. It will work this time! by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

    I'm sure this ban would work just as well as the previous ban on "exporting" encryption.

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  13. Looks like I am writing a letter. by Coventry · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I regularly do work for overseas clients using open source imaging libraries. Libraries that are _already_ available in those countries.
    So, a company in China could hire local developers to download and use the same NN (Neural Network) libraries I would use, and it would be legal. But if they hire me, overseas, to use the same libraries, that would be regulated as a technology exchange and possibly not allowed? That HURTS commerce. In an open source world, this sort of thing is ridiculous. It limits american companies by preventing them from competing internationally with already existing technologies - image classification, for example, is a Widely discussed topic, and many of the original theories and the techniques we use came from people outside the US - but thanks to international scientific sharing and open source, we - like everyone else - get to use and benefit from these techniques.

    And these technologies are everywhere - they are not militarily purposed/used. These days - Our cellphones use NN to determine what sort of 'scene' we point the camera at and adjust the exposure/brightness/contrast appropriately - whether for a selfie or a food shot. Snapchat and many apps use facial recognition that uses Neural Networks - AI image classification and recognition - to implement filters. So, you're telling me a company in China can develop a new fox-face filter for their snapchat-alike app using the same techniques and libraries we can all download, but it would be bad/wrong for an american company to make such a filter and sell it on the Chinese market? No, if such regulation were to be used, the stipulations must be much more specific than just including image classification and other broad AI techniques. _OF course_ we don't want American developers making weapons for foreign regimes - but to limit ALL uses of these technologies is asinine and bad for our tech sector as it cuts off a broad swath of the global market - a swath that _already_ has access to these techniques.

    The dept of commerce document linked in the article lists the following contact information:
    ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
    through either of the following:

      Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:///
    www.regulations.gov. The identification
    number for this rulemaking is BIS 2018–
    0024.

    Address: By mail or delivery to
    Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of
    Industry and Security, U.S. Department
    of Commerce, Room 2099B, 14th Street
    and Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
    Washington, DC 20230. Refer to RIN
    0694–AH61.
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Kirsten Mortimer, Office of National
    Security and Technology Transfer
    Controls, Bureau of Industry and
    Security, Department of Commerce.
    Phone: (202) 482–0092; Fax (202) 482–
    3355; Email: Kirsten.Mortimer AT
    bis.doc.gov.

    --
    man is machine
    1. Re:Looks like I am writing a letter. by PPH · · Score: 1

      Our cellphones use NN

      Well then we just won't export any of our cell phones to China.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  14. Yeah well done by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Because banning software from export has worked so well in the past. You know, what with it being so bulky and difficult to transport, there's just no way people can get their hands on tools when they're outside the US... I think billions of dollars should be spent on this preventative effort. It will be money well spent.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Yeah well done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just as long as those billions are spent outside of the US on AI development, yeah I'm all for it.

      This just boils down to the US throwing a temper tantrum over AI development, wanting total control and trying to ban others from getting it. If anything this latest move will just drive development elsewhere. No point in building it in the US if the US limits who you can sell the finished product to. It also signals the US is very afraid of losing it's top dog position in the world, that the US is ill-prepared to weather an AI breakthrough, and wants to prevent their competitors from growing. If that wasn't an open admission of "the grass is greener elsewhere" I don't know what is.

      "All AI development should move out of the US." Message received loud and clear.

  15. stupid useless pigs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that is all

  16. So-called 'AI' is garbage and hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should 'regulate' it into /dev/nul and forget about it until we can make REAL AI.

    1. Re: So-called 'AI' is garbage and hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real-artificial-intelli ...oh nevermind

  17. Regulate what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    True AI that needs to be regulated doesn't exist yet. It won't exist in the form these outlets are fear mongering over for AT LEAST 50 years.

    Can someone fill me in on any true AI that exists today that can cause ANY issues whatsoever which these outlets are spreading misinformation about? I'm not looking examples like kiosks, auto-pilot, factory robots, roombas, any robot that is not currently a completed product, etc...

  18. NS-AI by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Natural Stupidity regulating Artificial Intelligence

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  19. That's kind of the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yup, the point is to keep US persons from helping the Chinese develop military AI. Yes, you're prohibited from helping a hostile foreign power from developing weapons. That this hurts your job prospects isn't a problem for the other billion+ people in western world.

    1. Re:That's kind of the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know that he is working in a military program? do you think a foreign power will allow a foreigner develop weapons for them?
      Dont say the Western World like If Europe and other countries are a part of U.S. they are your allies not your Vassals.

    2. Re:That's kind of the point by Coventry · · Score: 1

      IF you actually read my comment, I am NOT making weapons tech or anything related, and even state we should _of course_ limit such uses - but the technology has a ton of other uses and is everywhere in the modern world. To limit all use and export of it just because it has some military uses is asinine - like limiting the export of aluminum - which every country in the world has access to - just because the Chinese might use some to make some weapons. The might also make your dishwashers.

      Learn to read.

      --
      man is machine
  20. Wasn't I you replied to & you KNOW it... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's an impersonator. I only post on hosts IF they stop threats OR speed you up. I don't off topic.

    HOWEVER: I won't "lay down" to losers that don't do a DAMN THING OF VALUE attacking me 1st. I defend myself w/ facts they can't beat.

    I've got a "psycho fanclub" IMPERSONATING me & spamming + lying about MY work STALKING me by UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous posts like whackos!

    GOOFS like c6gunner CAUGHT IMPERSONATING ME https://linux.slashdot.org/com...

    (His name's on the post as SUBMITTER signing "APK" as I do while he ALTERED users words of praise of my work (since he tried INSULTING me & I issued a FAIR CHALLENGE to him that HE SHOW HE CAN DO BETTER - he hasn't to date)).

    gweihir PROVED you IMPERSONATE me https://it.slashdot.org/commen... too!

    ZIP = a BLOWHARD LIAR vs. https://linux.slashdot.org/com...

    APK

    P.S.=> I'm not here to win a popularity contest OR to lose (it's for LOSERS like ZIP &/or c6gunner - not I): I'm here to WIN & so do hosts users

  21. Post you replied to's not I - it's impostors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't me you replied to: It's an impersonator. I only post on hosts IF they stop threats OR speed you up. I don't off topic.

    HOWEVER: I won't "lay down" to losers that don't do a DAMN THING OF VALUE attacking me 1st. I defend myself w/ facts they can't beat.

    I've got a "psycho fanclub" IMPERSONATING me & spamming + lying about MY work STALKING me by UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous posts like whackos!

    GOOFS like c6gunner CAUGHT IMPERSONATING ME https://linux.slashdot.org/com...

    (His name's on the post as SUBMITTER signing "APK" as I do while he ALTERED users words of praise of my work (since he tried INSULTING me & I issued a FAIR CHALLENGE to him that HE SHOW HE CAN DO BETTER - he hasn't to date)).

    gweihir PROVED you IMPERSONATE me https://it.slashdot.org/commen... too!

    ZIP = a BLOWHARD LIAR vs. https://linux.slashdot.org/com...

    APK

    P.S.=> I'm not here to win a popularity contest OR to lose (it's for LOSERS like ZIP &/or c6gunner - not I): I'm here to WIN & so do hosts users

  22. IMPERSONATING ME AGAIN? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    gweihir KNOWS u IMPERSONATE me https://it.slashdot.org/commen... c6gunner proves it https://linux.slashdot.org/com... he forgot to SUBMIT as AC & using his registered 'lusrname' instead (because he tried to mock me both BEFORE & after I FAIRLY challenged him to show he's done better work - he had ZERO).

    & NO WAY I'd "cry" like you "ne'er-do-wells" on /. (TROLL /.ers, not all) OR post on hosts offtopic.

    YOU HELPED ME https://science.slashdot.org/c... (& you quit trying to make me look bad trying to "tell lies" on hosts as "ME" IN YOUR IMPERSONATIONS of me e.g. https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... as regards Intel speculative execution attack? Hosts PREVENT 'EM)

    APK

    P.S.=> I KNOW the 2nd to last link above's KILLING YOU - YOU ACTUALLY HELPED ME getting me to see if hosts stop more than portsmash (& Meltdown + Spectre too) & "lo & behold" - hosts WORK on 'em - U LOSE (& U STOPPED TRYING IT in your impersonations of me) .... apk