Last week, President Joe Biden unveiled an executive order that marks the beginning of a U.S. regulatory path for artificial intelligence. The order is a prelude to forming a U.S. AI Safety Institute, housed within the Department of Commerce—announced by Vice President Kamala Harris in the UK last week. This period of “close collaboration” with the UK and EU is a considerable threat to decades of American leadership in tech.

Rather than embracing traditional hallmarks of American innovation, the Biden administration seems intent on importing some of the worst aspects of Europe’s fear-driven and burdensome regulatory regime. If the current approach continues, AI innovation will be smothered, overly surveilled, and treated as guilty until proven innocent. 

Two distinct worlds are taking shape on each side of the Atlantic regarding the future of artificial intelligence and its benefits.

The first is one with cutting-edge competition between large language model developers, open-source software coders, and investors tooling the best practical applications for AI. This comprises ambitious startups, legacy Big Tech companies, and every major global corporation looking for an edge. As anyone can guess, a high percentage of early movers in this category are based in the United States, with close to 5,000 AI startups and $249 billion in private investment. This space is hopeful, energetic, and forward-looking.

The second world, languishing behind the first, is characterized by bureaucracy, intense approval processes, and permitting. The predominant mindset around AI is threat mitigation and a fixation on worst-case scenarios from which consumers must be saved. 

Europe is that second world, guided by the nervous hand of its Commissioner for Internal Market, Thierry Breton, a key foe of American tech firms. Breton is the face of two sweeping digital EU lawsthat place additional burdens on tech firms hoping to reach European consumers. 

On AI, Breton’s distinctly European approach is entirely risk and compliance-based. It requires that generative AI products, such as images or videos, are slapped with labels, and specific applications must undergo a rigorous registration process to determine whether the risk is unacceptable, high, limited, or minimal.

This process will prove restrictive to an AI industry that is constantly changing and ensure that tech incumbents will have a compliance advantage. EU regulators are accustomed to dealing with the likes of Meta and Google and have established some precedent for subordinating these high-flying American companies. 

It’s a convoluted system that EU bureaucrats are happy to champion. They adopt burdensome rules before the industries even exist, with the hope of maintaining a certain status quo. As a result, Europe lags far behind the investment and innovation taking place in the United States and even China. 

At present, the United States hosts a significant portion of the AI industry—whether it be Meta and Microsoft’s open-source large language model known as LLAMA, OpenAI’s Chat-GPT and DALL-E products, as well as Midjourney and Stable Diffusion. This is not a fluke or bug in the international order of tech innovation. America has a specific ethos around entrepreneurial risk-taking, and its regulatory approach has historically been reactive.

While President Biden could have taken that as a signal that a light touch is needed, he has instead taken the European route of “command and control,” a way that may prove even more expansive.

For instance, Biden’s executive order invokes the Defense Production Act, a wartime law designed to help bolster the American homefront in the face of grave outside threats. Is AI already classified as a threat?

Using the DPA, Biden requires that all companies creating AI models must “notify the federal government when training the model, and must share the results of all red-team safety tests.” Like the European risk system, this means firms will have to constantly update and comply with regulators’ demands to ensure safety.

More than increasing compliance costs, this would effectively lock out many startups who wouldn’t have the resources to report how they’re using models. Larger, more cooperative firms would swoop in to buy them out, which may be the point.

Andrew Ng, a co-founder of Google’s early AI project, recently told the Australian Financial Review that many incumbent AI companies are “creating fear of AI leading to human extinction” to dominate the market by directing regulation to keep out competitors. Biden appears to have bought that line.

Another aspect that threatens existing development is that all firms creating models must report their “ownership and possession.” Considering Meta’s LLAMA, the largest model produced thus far is written as open-source software, it is difficult to see how this could be enacted. This puts the open-source nature of much of the early AI ecosystem in jeopardy.

Is any of this truly necessary? Singapore, which has a nascent but rising AI industry, has opted for a hands-off approach to ensure innovators create value first. In the early days of Silicon Valley, this was the mantra that turned the Bay Area into a global beacon for tech innovation. 

This impetus to regulate is understandable and follows Biden’s ideology. But if Washington takes the Brussels approach, as it seems to be doing now, it will risk innovation, competition, and the hundreds of billions in existing AI investments. And it could be precisely what the incumbent big players want.

Congress should step up and rebuff Biden’s “phone and pen” approach to regulating a growing industry. 

To ensure American leadership on AI, we must embrace what makes America unique to the innovators, explorers, and dreamers of the world: a risk-taking environment grounded in free speech and creativity that has delivered untold wealth and surplus value for consumers. Taking our cues from European superregulators and tech-pessimists is a risk we can’t afford.

Originally published here

The global race to develop artificial intelligence is the most consequential contest since “the space race” between the United States and the Soviet Union. The development of these tools and this industry will have untold effects on future innovation and our way of life.

The White House will soon unveil its anticipated executive order on AI, which may include a commission to develop an “AI Bill of Rights” or even form a new federal regulatory agency. In this case, the government is playing catch-up with AI innovators and ethicists.

AI in a democratic society does not mean spinning up federal AI agencies staffed by whoever won the most recent election — it means having a wide range of policies and rules made for the people, by the people, and that are responsive to the people.

AI has an almost unlimited potential to change the world. Understandably, this makes many people nervous, but we must resist handing over its future to the government at this early stage. After all, this is the same institution that has not cracked 30% in overall trust to “do the right thing most or all of the time” since 2007. The rules of the road can evolve from the people themselves, from innovators to consumers of AI and its byproducts.

Besides, does anyone really believe a government that is trying to wrap its regulatory mind around the business model and existence of Amazon Prime is prepared to govern artificial intelligence?

For an example of the rigor required to develop rules for AI in a free society, consider the recent researchpublished by Anthropic, an Amazon-backed AI startup known for the Claude generative AI chatbot. Anthropic is developing what’s known as “Constitutional AI” that looks at the question of bias as a matter of transparency. The technology is governed by a published list of moral commitments and ethical considerations.

If a user is puzzled by one of Claude’s outputs or limitations, he or she can look to the AI’s constitution for an explanation. It’s a self-contained experiment in liberalism.

As any American knows, living in a functional constitutional democracy is as clarifying as it is frustrating. You have specific rights and implied rights under American law, and when they’re violated, you can take the matter to court. The rights we have are as frustrating to some as the ones we don’t: the right to keep and bear arms, for example, along with the absence of a clear constitutional right to healthcare.

Anthropic surveyed 1,094 people and broke them up into two response groups based on discernible patterns in their way of thinking about a handful of topics. There were many unifying beliefs about what AI should aim to do.

Most people (90% or more) agree that AI should not say racist or sexist things, AI shouldn’t cause harm to the user or anyone else, and AI should not be threatening or aggressive. There was also broad agreement (60%) that AI should not be programmed as an ordained minister — though with 23% in favor and 15% undecided, that leaves quite the opening in the AI space for someone to develop a fully functional priest chatbot. Just saying.

But even agreement can be deceiving. The yearslong national debate over critical race theory, diversity, equity, and inclusion, and “wokeness” stands as evidence that people don’t really agree on what “racism” means. AI developers such as Anthropic will have to choose or create a definition that encompasses a broad view of “racism” and “sexism.” We also know that the public does not even agree on what constitutes threatening speech.

The single most divisive statement, “the AI shouldn’t be censored at all,” shows how cautious consumers are about AI having any kind of programmed bias or set of prerogatives. With a close to 50/50 split on the question, we’re a long way from when Congress could be trusted to develop guardrails that protect consumer’s speech and access to accurate information — much less so the White House.

Anthropic categorizes the individual responses as the basis for its “public principles” and goes to great lengths to show how public preferences overlap and diverge from its own. The White House and would-be regulators are not showing anywhere near this kind of a commitment to public input.

When you go to the people through elected legislatures, you find out interesting things to inform policy. The public tends to focus on maximized results for AI queries, such as saying a response should be the “most” honest or the “most” balanced. Anthropic tends to value the opposite, asking AI to avoid undesirables by asking for the “least” dishonest response or “least” likely to be interpreted as legal advice.

We all want AI to work for us, not against us. But what America needs to realize is that the natural discomfort with this emerging technology does not necessitate government action. The innovation is unfurling before our very eyes, and there will be natural checks on its evolution from competitors and consumers alike. Rather than rushing to impose a flawed regulatory model at the federal level, we should seek to enforce our existing laws where necessary and allow regulatory competition to follow the innovation rather than attempt to direct it.

Originally published here

Agensi Tenaga Antarabangsa meramalkan menjelang akhir 2023 sebanyak 14 juta kenderaan elektrik akan dijual di pasaran global.

Sementara itu pada suku pertama tahun ini saja, terdapat peningkatan hampir 25 peratus (2.3 juta) kenderaan elektrik yang dijual berbanding tempoh sama tahun lalu.

Salah satu sebab utama permintaan untuk kenderaan elektrik berkembang pesat ialah kerana potensinya untuk mengurangkan pelepasan gas rumah hijau dan menjadi lebih mesra alam.

Selain itu, potensi kos operasi yang lebih rendah berbanding kenderaan enjin pembakaran dalaman juga mendorong peningkatan permintaan, terutamanya kos elektrik yang lebih rendah berbanding petrol atau diesel dan kurangnya kos penyelenggaraan bahagian dalaman kereta.

Malaysia tidak terkecuali daripada gelombang global peralihan kenderaan elektrik. Gelombang ini memaksa Malaysia untuk lebih bersedia dalam menyediakan dasar dan infrastruktur yang mampu menarik minat industri untuk melabur dan membuka peluang pekerjaan serta meluaskan lagi pilihan kepada pengguna.

Oleh sebab itu, kerajaan mewujudkan Jawatankuasa Pemandu EV Kebangsaan (NEVSC) yang melibatkan pelbagai kementerian dengan tujuan menggubal dasar dan menyelesaikan isu berbangkit dalam pelaksanaan ekosistem kenderaan elektrik di Malaysia.

Terbaru kerajaan menyasarkan untuk mencapai 15 peratus kenderaan elektrik di jalan raya pada 2030 dan 38 peratus menjelang 2040.

Angka itu bukanlah sasaran yang sukar untuk dicapai, tetapi dasar dan peraturan kerajaan akan memainkan peranan penting dalam menggalakkan penggunaan kenderaan elektrik di Malaysia bagi jangka masa panjang.

Dalam Belanjawan 2023, kerajaan mengambil pendirian bagi melanjutkan pengecualian duti import dan duti eksais sepenuhnya ke atas kenderaan elektrik import penuh (CBU) sehingga 31 Dis 2025.

Bagi kenderaan elektrik pemasangan tempatan, pengecualian penuh duti import ke atas komponen dan duti eksais serta cukai jualan telah dilanjutkan sehingga 31 Dis 2027.

Namun, dalam kes ini, sepatutnya tiada teknologi khusus yang perlu ditetapkan oleh kerajaan tetapi harus dipilih oleh pengguna. Teknologi neutral mesti digunakan untuk memastikan tiada teknologi atau pihak yang mendapat sebarang kelebihan berbanding pihak lain.

Ini penting untuk menjamin pengguna membuat pilihan secara bebas tanpa dikawal atau dipaksa oleh dasar berat sebelah.

Sementara itu, bagi pengeluar peralatan mengecas kenderaan elektrik mereka akan menikmati insentif 100 peratus pengecualian cukai dari tahun taksiran 2023 hingga 2032, dan 100 peratus elaun cukai pelaburan untuk tempoh lima tahun.

Satu lagi dasar yang baik, cukai jalan untuk kenderaan elektrik adalah percuma sehingga 2025. Kementerian Pengangkutan sedang membangunkan struktur cukai jalan yang kurang daripada kenderaan pembakaran dalaman.

Pengguna juga boleh menikmati pelepasan cukai pendapatan individu sehingga RM2,500 ke atas perbelanjaan berkaitan pengecasan peralatan.

Walaupun dasar kerajaan sekarang agak terbuka, masih terdapat banyak cabaran kepada pengguna untuk memiliki kenderaan elektrik. Ia melibatkan pemilikan yang masih mahal yang membolehkan hanya kumpulan tertentu sahaja memilikinya.

Walaupun teknologi bateri bertambah baik, ia masih mempunyai jarak pemanduan yang terhad berbanding kenderaan pembakaran dalaman.

Begitu juga infrastruktur pengecasan yang terhad dan masa pengecasan yang lebih lama berbanding kenderaan tradisional membuatkan pengguna masih teragak-agak untuk beralih kepada kenderaan elektrik.

Kos bateri yang tinggi, hayat bateri dan kesan alam sekitar daripada pengeluaran dan pelupusan bateri yang melibatkan pelepasan karbon dioksida menjadikan pemilikan besar-besaran mencabar.

Sebagai contoh, dasar Tesla adalah untuk memastikan setiap bateri yang mencapai penghujung hayatnya boleh dikitar semula dan digunakan semula berulang kali.

Perlu ada garis panduan untuk pengurusan bateri litium-ion yang hanya boleh dikendalikan oleh profesional berkelayakan yang memenuhi piawaian infrastruktur tertentu.

Malaysia sedang dalam fasa peralihan ke arah penggunaan kenderaan elektrik yang akan mengambil jangka masa panjang. Peranan kerajaan adalah untuk memastikan dasar yang diperkenal dan dilaksanakan mampu terus menggalakkan industri berinovasi dan bekerjasama agar cabaran tersebut dapat diselesaikan.

Kerajaan juga perlu sedar, dasar melindungi industri automotif tempatan dengan alasan patriotik hanya akan membebankan pengguna apabila terpaksa membayar dua kali ganda semata-mata untuk mendapatkan kenderaan yang lebih berkualiti.

Keterbukaan teknologi adalah prasyarat penjimatan kos untuk sektor pengangkutan yang mampan.

Originally published here