It's funny: it reminds me of "strong cryptography export ban" in the 2000's (btw, Oracle java still have it: you must download strong crypto package separatly)... Obviously, it failed! You can stop a single vendor with unique technology to provide hardware components with bans, but you can't stop a whole field spreading knowledge!!! People come and go, meet, talk, write, exchange knowledges... so sooner or later (and…
U.S. government limits exports of artificial intelligence software
201–210 of 220 posts
Re: U.S. government limits exports of artificial intelligence software
#202Re: U.S. government limits exports of artificial intelligence software
#203Additional details are present in the unpublished rule (document 2019-27649 [1][2]). -- cut -- Geospatial imagery “software” “specially designed” for training a Deep Convolutional Neural Network to automate the analysis of geospatial imagery and point clouds, and having all of the following: 1. Provides a graphical user interface that enables the user to identify objects (e.g., vehicles, houses, etc.) from within geo…
The "graphical user interface" bit is weird. I suppose you are fine if the software is driven entirely by keyboard shortcuts.
Re: U.S. government limits exports of artificial intelligence software
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
This overly specific intersection of requirements is how you target a single product in legislation.
I saw a great example of this when I was looking at VA gun laws today. They have an exception structured as follows: Virginia law exempts from these requirements any firearms shows held in any town with a population of not less than 1,995 and not more than 2,010, according to the 1990 United States census [1] [1] https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-shows-in-virginia/
[1] https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1990/...
Re: U.S. government limits exports of artificial intelligence software
#205It's funny: it reminds me of "strong cryptography export ban" in the 2000's (btw, Oracle java still have it: you must download strong crypto package separatly)... Obviously, it failed! You can stop a single vendor with unique technology to provide hardware components with bans, but you can't stop a whole field spreading knowledge!!! People come and go, meet, talk, write, exchange knowledges... so sooner or later (and…
> you can't stop a whole field spreading knowledge!!! Is it foolish that the US government continues to try to restrict the spread of nuclear engineering?
A parallel reasoning would be with face recognition: the algorithms are quite widespread (the knowledge) and new algorithms build on shared knowledge of the field, but the tuning of the parameters, of the input datas, the access to top hardware to speed up learning process, evaluate new strategies, and access to big databases are not.
The problem for a state to get the face recognition technology is either to obtain the parameters or to invest time and money to build it. So it's not really "bannable" because theses resources are available everywhere (and lots of companies are ready to provide it).
A more "bannable" tech would be "quantum computer" because it relies on new engineering tech, not only on knwoledge.
Re: U.S. government limits exports of artificial intelligence software
#206Seems way more narrow than the title implies "The rule will likely be welcomed by industry, Lewis said, because it had feared a much broader crackdown on exports of most artificial intelligence hardware and software"
Re: U.S. government limits exports of artificial intelligence software
#207Re: U.S. government limits exports of artificial intelligence software
#208Additional details are present in the unpublished rule (document 2019-27649 [1][2]). -- cut -- Geospatial imagery “software” “specially designed” for training a Deep Convolutional Neural Network to automate the analysis of geospatial imagery and point clouds, and having all of the following: 1. Provides a graphical user interface that enables the user to identify objects (e.g., vehicles, houses, etc.) from within geo…
The export ban is on the software? Not the algorithm itself? And would it be broad enough that all AI and QI frameworks like PyTorch, Tensorflow and Qiskit would fall under its purview. These restrictions seem to flow from a mental model that still views software as a product purchased in a shrink-wrapped box. Rather than the services based model currently extant.
I think the same concept applies here. Software is the machine that embodies the algorithm. Its tied to a company and to dollars.
What this will also mean is that startups that work in this space will need to watch out who they get funding from. If the VC is not US-based, CFIUS oversight may kick in.
Re: U.S. government limits exports of artificial intelligence software
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
My initial instinct exactly, because major corps are global now, which means they can easily set up shop anywhere on Earth: subsidiaries, but also quasi-independent structures which might only be related through distant funding or meta-agreements. So you can be an American company with tons of "friends" in the EU, Asia, Latin American and now Africa, doing stuff (research, product) and you would just happen to buy/se…
I don't understand why you mention ETFs. If Google said it was meaningless that they were in a total market index fund with almost every other public company, then they would be right. But whether they were or weren't they could do business with somebody just the same. Did you think that companies can't interact if they're not subsidiaries of the same organization? Not only can they do whatever they want bilaterally,…
> Did you think that companies can't interact if they're not subsidiaries of the same organization?
Of course not :) I however wonder if defending anti-trust from a subsidiary strategy would work — at least in France, I'm pretty sure taking half your execs and hiring them in a subsidiary which you control will NOT get you past anti-trust regulation.
You might say "but it's legal!" and the judge will kindly ask you not to mock the court by disingenuously failing to address the case at hand — are you or are you not effectively in a monopoly, or cartel situation? Legal or not in terms of legal structure doesn't matter because antitrust is 'above' in the hierarchy of norms (so to speak, my law studies are really far away now, and I was more into public than private law).
Case in point though, shareholding is even legally restricted in some sectors (e.g. media, and that was a strong motivation for e.g. Facebook trying not to be filed as a media group, at least in the EU).
I have absolutely no idea how this would fly in the US. I bow to your expertise, here.
A good example, I think, will be the shareholding structure of Libra (if it ever comes to fruition), where many actors essentially hide their participation behind layers of companies, like some onion (there was a good infographic which you might google on the topic). It's legal, technically, but would it stand in front of a supreme court antitrust case?
As far as I know from history, even legal lines tend to become blurry in major antitrust cases because these are, by essence, out-of-bounds of 'normal' operation, they're fringe cases that sometimes requires a new ad hoc law to take where we want to (I seem to remember elements of Teddy Roosevelt's opposition with Rockefeller, details of the Bell system breakup too, but I'm really not sure. Here in the EU, it's really common —all things considered— to just make new law whenever the current letter fails to live up to the desired spirit).
Thank you for the remarks, I'll probably refrain from speaking about antitrust in the US until I have a better understanding of those.