How can we avoid AI being monopolised by powerful countries and companies?
Artificial intelligence has the potential to solve many of the world’s problems, from combating diseases to better climate modelling. But the wealthiest countries and tech firms may seek to hoard these benefits for themselves.
Sharing computing resources with developing nations and granting access to the best research centres could help democratise access to AI.
But will the drive for profits and power eclipse efforts to open up AI more broadly to the world?
Let us know your thoughts below. We would like to hear your opinions.
More
How a Swiss-led global network fosters greater access to AI
The sharing of computing resources with developing nations and granting access to the best research centres could help democratise access to AI.
Unfortunately, wealthiest countries and tech firms "will" hoard these benefits for themselves in their quest to maintain profit and power. There is a saying "who ever controls AI" will control the world.
AI relies on data. The data required does not exist in developing nations to foster innovation locally.
If it is used for good and research to improve the standard of living of the entire world population, it is a good thing; but I am sure it will also be used in an underhand way; mainly to make profits at the expense of so many people; if the institutions do not watch very closely, it will create many problems!
Se usata per il bene e la ricerca per migliorare il tenore di vita di tutta la popolazione mondiale è una buona cosa; ma sono sicuro che verrà usata anche in maniera subdola; principalmente per avere dei profitti a discapito di tantissime persone; se le istituzioni non vigileranno molto attentamente creerà molti problemi!
AI is at the beginning of its development and the potential is still far from being developed. As with all technologies, there is a race by developer companies to gain competitive advantages. States always lag behind by legislating ex post facto. The market will develop, as with other technologies, and there will be a few 'best of class' companies that will dominate, but catastrophic or conspiracy scenarios are very unlikely.
L'IA è all'inizio del suo sviluppo e il potenziale ancora lontano dall'essere sviluppato. Come per tutte le tecnologie c'è una corsa delle aziende sviluppatrici per ottenere vantaggi competitivi. Gli stati sono sempre in ritardo legiferando ex post. Il mercato si svilupperà, come per le altre tecnologie e ci saranno pochi "best of class" che domineranno, ma scenari catastrofistici o complottistici sono molto improbabili.
A certain limit must be set for AI so that companies and governments cannot monopolise it.
Il faut fixer une certaine limite à L'IA pour que les entreprises et les états ne puissent en monopoliser
To ensure that AI is more of an advantage than a disadvantage for workers, it is crucial to:
Invest in education and reskilling programs: Workers need to be supported in learning new skills, especially those that complement AI, like creative thinking, problem-solving, and emotional intelligence.
Adopt policies that support workers' transitions: Governments and businesses can help by creating safety nets, like unemployment insurance, and by facilitating job retraining programs to ensure that workers who lose jobs to automation can find new ones.
Foster collaboration between AI and workers: AI should be viewed as a tool to augment human capabilities, not replace them. This requires a mindset shift from fear of job loss to viewing AI as an enabler of better work experiences.
Encourage responsible AI deployment: Businesses and governments should ensure that AI is implemented ethically, with attention to its social impact, to avoid unintended consequences such as mass unemployment or deepening inequality.
Conclusion:
AI can be both an advantage and a disadvantage for workers, depending largely on how it is introduced and managed. If used thoughtfully, it has the potential to create more fulfilling, productive, and safer work environments. However, if implemented without consideration for workers' well-being and the need for upskilling, AI could exacerbate unemployment and inequality. Ultimately, its impact will depend on the collective actions of governments, businesses, and workers to adapt to this rapidly changing landscape.
You said:
How can we avoid AI being monopolised by powerful countries and companies?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
The potential for artificial intelligence (AI) to be monopolized by powerful countries and companies is a significant concern. Given the transformative nature of AI, its concentration in the hands of a few could lead to economic, social, and political imbalances. To avoid AI being monopolized and ensure it benefits society at large, a multi-pronged approach involving regulation, collaboration, transparency, and inclusivity is necessary.
1. International Cooperation and Governance:
Global Frameworks for AI Regulation: Establishing international agreements and treaties can help set global standards for the ethical development and use of AI. The United Nations, OECD, and other international bodies can play a crucial role in fostering cooperation between countries to ensure that AI does not become a tool of power concentration.
Global AI Ethics Guidelines: Encouraging the development of global ethical guidelines for AI can prevent harmful monopolization. These should cover issues like fairness, transparency, accountability, and human rights, ensuring that AI technologies are developed and deployed in a way that benefits humanity as a whole.
Cross-Border Collaboration: Collaboration across countries, particularly between developed and developing nations, can help distribute AI benefits more equitably. International partnerships can foster the sharing of knowledge, resources, and technology, enabling smaller countries or organizations to contribute to and benefit from AI.
2. Strong National Regulations and Antitrust Laws:
Antitrust Enforcement: Governments can enforce antitrust regulations to prevent a handful of large companies from dominating the AI market. For instance, regulating the acquisitions of smaller AI startups by tech giants, or breaking up monopolies in extreme cases, can help promote competition.
Fair Access to AI Infrastructure: Governments can mandate fair and non-discriminatory access to essential AI resources (like large-scale computing power, datasets, and research). For example, cloud computing services or AI research labs should be made available to a wide range of organizations, not just a few large firms.
Transparency in AI Development: Governments should require transparency from companies regarding how they develop and use AI. This can include mandatory audits, disclosures about data usage, and clarity on how algorithms make decisions. Transparency helps to ensure that AI development is not hidden behind closed doors, where it can be manipulated to concentrate power.
3. Encouraging Open-Source AI:
Promote Open-Source AI Projects: Supporting and funding open-source AI initiatives can help democratize access to AI tools and prevent them from being monopolized by private companies. Open-source projects, like Google's TensorFlow or Facebook's PyTorch, enable researchers and smaller companies to develop their own AI applications without needing massive financial resources.
Public AI Research Funding: Governments and non-profit organizations can fund public research into AI, ensuring that AI knowledge and technology are not concentrated in a few companies. Public investment in AI research can help distribute its benefits more broadly and prevent the concentration of power in a few corporate hands.
Open Data Repositories: Encouraging the development and use of open, accessible datasets can help ensure that companies of all sizes have the data necessary to train and refine their AI systems. This reduces the power of companies that control large proprietary datasets.
4. Decentralized and Democratized AI Development:
Community-Driven AI Initiatives: Encouraging local and community-driven AI projects can help distribute AI innovation. Examples might include community-driven data collection projects or local AI development initiatives focused on specific regional challenges (e.g., healthcare, agriculture).
Fostering AI Innovation in Developing Countries: Many emerging markets are not yet fully engaged with AI development. Governments and international organizations can support AI research and training programs in these countries to prevent the AI divide between the Global North and South. This could involve establishing AI labs, research grants, and talent development in underserved regions.
Collaborative AI Platforms: Promoting collaborative platforms where smaller companies, universities, and researchers can work together can help counter the dominance of large corporations. These platforms could share resources, datasets, and algorithms that might otherwise be unavailable to smaller players.
5. Ethical Considerations and Social Responsibility:
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) for AI Companies: Encouraging or mandating companies to adopt strong CSR practices, including ethical AI development, is essential. Corporations should be required to demonstrate how their AI systems will benefit society, ensure fairness, and avoid bias.
Incorporating Ethics into AI Education: Embedding ethics and social responsibility into AI education and training is crucial. A generation of AI professionals who understand the broader societal implications of AI will be better equipped to develop responsible and equitable technologies.
AI Impact Assessments: Just as environmental impact assessments are required for certain projects, AI companies could be required to conduct impact assessments to understand the broader social, economic, and political effects of their AI systems before deployment. This would help prevent monopolistic or harmful uses of AI.
6. Empowering Individuals and Small Players:
Access to AI Tools and Platforms: Providing smaller businesses, startups, and individuals with access to affordable AI tools and cloud computing platforms can help level the playing field. Public initiatives or government subsidies could make these technologies more accessible to diverse groups.
AI Literacy for the General Public: Encouraging AI literacy for all levels of society—from schoolchildren to senior professionals—can ensure that a wide range of people understand AI, its potential, and its risks. This knowledge can empower individuals to make informed decisions about AI's use and demand more equitable outcomes.
7. Promoting Responsible AI by Design:
AI Ethics Boards and Advisory Councils: Governments and organizations can establish independent bodies to monitor AI development and its societal implications. These bodies could provide advice, review AI deployment practices, and help prevent abuses of power.
Regulation of AI Bias and Accountability: Regulations could require companies to disclose biases in their AI systems and be held accountable for harm caused by AI decisions. This would discourage the monopolization of AI technologies for discriminatory purposes and ensure that AI systems serve a broad range of social interests.
despite I don't believe nobody can't control AI and tech corporations as corporatocracy. Still, to avoid AI monopolizing by a few powerful countries or companies, there needs to be a multi-layered approach that includes international collaboration, strong regulation, ethical development, open-source initiatives, and a focus on ensuring access to AI for all. Governments, the private sector, and civil society must work together to create an environment where AI can flourish in a way that is transparent, equitable, and beneficial to everyone, not just a select few. By doing so, we can avoid the concentration of AI power and ensure that its benefits are distributed more fairly across societies.
I think there is already a monopoly on current AI in many ways or to some extent. And I think we are already being enslaved and controlled by it in many ways as well. One example is the large number of people who are addicted to their phones and/or to social media, which in turn means they are being contolled by the companies who own them. All of these devices and platforms are intentionally designed to exploit the brain's reward system via dopamine. Our minds are being hijacked, essentially. Meanwhile, the tech companies get richer and richer the more time we waste on our devices and on our social media accounts. I think it is up to people to properly educate themselves and consciously control their usage rather than continuously allowing their devices and these websites to control them. I fear that as long as our information and attention is targeted by these tech companies, AI will increasingly come to dominate many aspects of our lives, often without us even being consciously aware of it. As an example, the machine-learning utilized by these companies to collect our data and store our information and then potentially manipulate us according to that information. Remember the ad targeting that once helped Trump get elected? A monopoly on that ability is frightening to consider, and yet I think that's exactly what people like Zuckerberg and Elon Musk are trying to achieve. In their war for our time, attention and our money, we are reduced to nothing but code in the "metaverse." I think this is one of the early signs regarding the need for more regulation over the AI otherwise known as social media as well as the need to prevent the ability of capitalist-driven tech moguls to enslave our minds and potentially control our thoughts (and influence elections, etc). "He who controls the media controls the minds" -- Jim Morrison.
Is that a reply a result of an Artificial Intelligence agent? Right now most of the people belong to the adaptation groupthink, while the few doing anticipation are not yet being accompanied by effective participation. This replier on his third contribution thanks Swissinfo for starting such participation.
This second comment is a tip of an iceberg centered on emergence that’s possible with anticipatory innovative learning by leaders. All previous comments seem to kind be contrary to the possibility of a positive outcome, in one way or another, are probably based on the assumption “to adapt national laws to govern the use of AI domestically…” Instead, I anticipate the emergence of global laws to govern the use of AI in my first comment.
Swiss’ history is an example of the emergence process to become a developed country on the Modernity environment of independent nations. Many other so called developing nations did not emerged to “.,. come up with a solution…” as Rafiq Tschannen argued.
China, for example, remained a developing nation and did not emerged to become a developed country on the Modernity environment, but right now is ahead of the European Union as an example of a recent emergence process on the new global environment that I argued in my first comment.
Unfortunately regulations are next to useless, as there will always be actors that will bypass any rules and regulations. No, sorry, I cannot come up with a solution...
As I see it...it is AI that is CREATING world problems - not solving them. Even the British creator of AI is warning...
Yes: “ How can we avoid AI being monopolised by powerful countries and companies?”
but: there’s no possible adaptation for national leaders under the current Modernity environment of separate independent nations and blocs of nations
and: instead we need to anticipate an emerging environment for global leaders to unite interdependent nations and blocs of nations.
PD. I have been arguing for a global decentralized state under the #Cyberity environment. Such a view emulates the Swiss environment on a larger architecting scope.
All respondents have already given convergent explanations that the question formulated is not particularly witty. It seems that one would like further regulation (aberration) of the normal development of a technology in favour of countries defined as poor. To develop cutting-edge technologies (AI is partly so), cutting-edge knowledge and capital are needed. Small companies and countries without large resources can certainly participate in applications. Countries classified as less wealthy (in reality, the problem is the distribution of wealth, read corruption) have no technological limitations, only other, far more serious problems (read corruption again).
Tutti i rispondenti hanno già spiegato con le convergenti spiegazioni che la domanda formulata non è particolarmente arguta. Sembra che si vorrebbe una ulteriore regolamentazione (aberrazione) del normale sviluppo di una tecnologia a favore dei paesi definiti poveri. Per sviluppare tecnologie di punta (in parte l'IA lo è), sono necessarie conoscenza di punta e capitale. Per le applicazioni possono senz'altro partecipare anche piccole realtà aziendali e paesi senza grandi risorse. I paesi classificati come meno ricchi (in realtà il problema è la distribuzione della ricchezza, leggasi corruzione) non hanno limitazioni tecnologiche, ma solo altri problemi, ben più gravi (leggasi di nuovo corruzione).
At least with AI you can discuss things and it can even be scrutinised and corrected, which is absolutely not possible with the established media. they are always right and know how to justify themselves in a clever way. They block, censor etc. when they don't like something. Not so the AI. I have often received good information that can be checked and criticised. In the best/worst case, you could say "it's Hans was Heiri". If you also scrutinise the AI, you're in the best position. The richest countries and the richest individuals have been rich for a long time, even before there was an AI, and that won't change.
Mit der KI kann man wenigstens diskutieren und sie lässt sich sogar hinterfragen und korrigieren, was bei den etablierten Medien absolut nicht möglich ist. die haben immer recht und wissen sich auf schlaue Weise zu rechtfertigen. Sie blockieren, zensurieren etc. wenn ihnen etwas nicht passt. Nicht so die KI. Ich habe schon oft gute Infos bekommen, die man auch überprüfen und kritisieren kann. Im besten/schlimmsten Fall könnte man sagen "es isch Hans was Heiri". Wenn man auch die IK hinterfragt fährt man am besten. Die reichsten Länder und die reichsten Individuen waren schon länger reich, auch bevor es ein KI gab, und daran wird sich nichts ändern.
It is obvious that the more developed (richer) countries are more likely to invest in this sector, which requires great IT skills and also capital. But it is no different at all than for any other complex technology sector. The usual 'race for profits' (?) - And who is not chasing profits in any sector of the economy? AI will also spread in the third world, even if it will not be the protagonist, at least for the next few years. Nothing new under the sun in this hyper-technological profile.
It seems to me a politically idle question.
È ovvio che i paesi più sviluppati (ricchi) hanno più possibilità di investire in questo settore che richiede grandi capacità informatiche e anche capitale. Ma non è affatto diverso che per ogni altro settore tecnologico complesso. La solita "corsa ai profitti" (?) - E chi è che non rincorre i profitti in qualsiasi settore dell'economia? L' IA si diffonderà pure ne terzo mondo, anche se non ne sarà il protagonista, almeno per i prossimi anni. Niente di nuovo sotto il sole sotto questo profilo ipertecnologico.
Mi sembra una domanda politico-oziosa.
Why and how can rich countries hoard the AI capability? AI can be made available to any country as long as they have internet access or access to computing power.
It sounds like a hollow attempt to blame rich countries for the bane of poorer countries whenever there is something with respect to "competitive advantage" is invented.
Poor people remain poor because of environments and also because of decisions and corruption. It has nothing to do with AI or cash or money or expensive cars.
We can't. Once the genii is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in. Capitalism has led to many world problems, as the rich seek to get richer no matter what the cost. Why should AI be any different? How can the general public stop its misuse? We can't.
Always the same 'capitalism'! You tell me which countries in the whole world (!) today are not capitalist ? There are none, except perhaps Cuba and North Korea, which are still communist to all intents and purposes. China is no longer communist (if only in name) because it has a mixed state and private capitalist economy system. Has it abolished private property as the communist gospel dictates? No way! For a Chinese, owning your own home is an absolute must, on pain of not even finding a wife. Of Russia, we now know that it has no longer declared itself communist since at least 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall: today it resembles more a 'fascist' or one-party country, but with a mixed economy that participates in the WTO as does China.
Having said that, capitalism has as much to do with AI as with any other industrial product: it is obvious that the more economically powerful countries can invest more in it, but even little Switzerland is no different. That leaves the Third World, but that has other needs than AI.
Sempre il solito "capitalismo"! Mi dica lei quali sono oggi i paesi del modo intero (!) a non essere capitalisti ? Non ne esistono, se non forse ancora Cuba e la Corea del Nord che sono ancora comunisti a tutti gli effetti. La Cina non è più comunista (se non solo di nome) perché ha un sistema ad economia mista capitalista statale e privata. Ha forse abolito la proprietà privata come impone il vangelo comunista? Ma nemmeno per sogno! Per un cinese, possedere un abitazione in proprio è un must assoluto, pena di non trovare nemmeno moglie. Della Russia ormai sappiamo che non si dichiara più comunista da almeno il 1989, con la caduta del muro di Berlino: oggi somiglia più a un paese "fascista" o a partito unico, ma con economia mista che partecipa al WTO come anche la Cina.
Ciò premesso, il capitalismo con l' IA c'entra come per tutti gli altri prodotti industriali: ovvio che i paesi più potenti economicamente, possono investire di più in merito, ma anche la piccola Svizzera non è da meno. Rimane il terzo mondo, ma quello ha ben altre necessità che non l' IA.
All monetary systems have failed, mainly due to the greedy few who want more than anyone else. We need a different system, but what? How about cancelling money 100%. Everything has zero value. You are given what you need to work, to live, nothing more. How many cars can you drive at once, or houses can you live in? Most people can survive on much less. Trouble is people always want more.
Join the conversation!