Tag Archives: Imran Rahman-Jones

DeepSeek, a Chinese rival to OpenAI and other US AI companies

There’s been quite the kerfuffle over DeepSeek during the last few days. This January 27, 2025 article by Alexandra Mae Jones for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) news only was my introduction to DeepSeek AI, Note: A link has been removed,

There’s a new player in AI on the world stage: DeepSeek, a Chinese startup that’s throwing tech valuations into chaos and challenging U.S. dominance in the field with an open-source model that they say they developed for a fraction of the cost of competitors.

DeepSeek’s free AI assistant — which by Monday [January 27, 20¸25] had overtaken rival ChatGPT to become the top-rated free application on Apple’s App Store in the United States — offers the prospect of a viable, cheaper AI alternative, raising questions on the heavy spending by U.S. companies such as Apple and Microsoft, amid a growing investor push for returns.

U.S. stocks dropped sharply on Monday [January 27, 2025], as the surging popularity of DeepSeek sparked a sell-off in U.S. chipmakers.

“[DeepSeek] performs as well as the leading models in Silicon Valley and in some cases, according to their claims, even better,” Sheldon Fernandez, co-founder of DarwinAI, told CBC News. “But they did it with a fractional amount of the resources is really what is turning heads in our industry.”

What is DeepSeek?

Little is known about the small Hangzhou startup behind DeepSeek, which was founded out of a hedge fund in 2023, but largely develops open-source AI models. 

Its researchers wrote in a paper last month that the DeepSeek-V3 model, launched on Jan. 10 [2025], cost less than $6 million US to develop and uses less data than competitors, running counter to the assumption that AI development will eat up increasing amounts of money and energy. 

Some analysts are skeptical about DeepSeek’s $6 million claim, pointing out that this figure only covers computing power. But Fernandez said that even if you triple DeepSeek’s cost estimates, it would still cost significantly less than its competitors. 

The open source release of DeepSeek-R1, which came out on Jan. 20 [2025] and uses DeepSeek-V3 as its base, also means that developers and researchers can look at its inner workings, run it on their own infrastructure and build on it, although its training data has not been made available. 

“Instead of paying Open $20 a month or $200 a month for the latest advanced versions of these models, [people] can really get these types of features for free. And so it really upends a lot of the business model that a lot of these companies were relying on to justify their very high valuations.”

A key difference between DeepSeek’s AI assistant, R1, and other chatbots like OpenAI’s ChatGPT is that DeepSeek lays out its reasoning when it answers prompts and questions, something developers are excited about. 

“The dealbreaker is the access to the raw thinking steps,” Elvis Saravia, an AI researcher and co-founder of the U.K.-based AI consulting firm DAIR.AI, wrote on X, adding that the response quality was “comparable” to OpenAI’s latest reasoning model, o1.

U.S. dominance in AI challenged

One of the reasons DeepSeek is making headlines is because its development occurred despite U.S. actions to keep Americans at the top of AI development. In 2022, the U.S. curbed exports of computer chips to China, hampering their advanced supercomputing development.

The latest AI models from DeepSeek are widely seen to be competitive with those of OpenAI and Meta, which rely on high-end computer chips and extensive computing power.

Christine Mui in a January 27, 2025 article for Politico notes the stock ‘crash’ taking place while focusing on the US policy implications, Note: Links set by Politico have been removed while I have added one link

A little-known Chinese artificial intelligence startup shook the tech world this weekend by releasing an OpenAI-like assistant, which shot to the No.1 ranking on Apple’s app store and caused American tech giants’ stocks to tumble.

From Washington’s perspective, the news raised an immediate policy alarm: It happened despite consistent, bipartisan efforts to stifle AI progress in China.

In tech terms, what freaked everyone out about DeepSeek’s R1 model is that it replicated — and in some cases, surpassed — the performance of OpenAI’s cutting-edge o1 product across a host of performance benchmarks, at a tiny fraction of the cost.

The business takeaway was straightforward. DeepSeek’s success shows that American companies might not need to spend nearly as much as expected to develop AI models. That both intrigues and worries investors and tech leaders.

The policy implications, though, are more complex. Washington’s rampant anxiety about beating China has led to policies that the industry has very mixed feelings about.

On one hand, most tech firms hate the export controls that stop them from selling as much to the world’s second-largest economy, and force them to develop new products if they want to do business with China. If DeepSeek shows those rules are pointless, many would be delighted to see them go away.

On the other hand, anti-China, protectionist sentiment has encouraged Washington to embrace a whole host of industry wishlist items, from a lighter-touch approach to AI rules to streamlined permitting for related construction projects. Does DeepSeek mean those, too, are failing? Or does it trigger a doubling-down?

DeepSeek’s success truly seems to challenge the belief that the future of American AI demands ever more chips and power. That complicates Trump’s interest in rapidly building out that kind of infrastructure in the U.S.

Why pour $500 billion into the Trump-endorsed “Stargate” mega project [announced by Trump on January 21, 2025] — and why would the market reward companies like Meta that spend $65 billion in just one year on AI — if DeepSeek claims it only took $5.6 million and second-tier Nvidia chips to train one of its latest models? (U.S. industry insiders dispute the startup’s figures and claim they don’t tell the full story, but even at 100 times that cost, it would be a bargain.)

Tech companies, of course, love the recent bloom of federal support, and it’s unlikely they’ll drop their push for more federal investment to match anytime soon. Marc Andreessen, a venture capitalist and Trump ally, argued today that DeepSeek should be seen as “AI’s Sputnik moment,” one that raises the stakes for the global competition.

That would strengthen the case that some American AI companies have been pressing for the new administration to invest government resources into AI infrastructure (OpenAI), tighten restrictions on China (Anthropic) and ease up on regulations to ensure their developers build “artificial general intelligence” before their geopolitical rivals.

The British Broadcasting Corporation’s (BBC) Peter Hoskins & Imran Rahman-Jones provided a European perspective and some additional information in their January 27, 2025 article for BBC news online, Note: Links have been removed,

US tech giant Nvidia lost over a sixth of its value after the surging popularity of a Chinese artificial intelligence (AI) app spooked investors in the US and Europe.

DeepSeek, a Chinese AI chatbot reportedly made at a fraction of the cost of its rivals, launched last week but has already become the most downloaded free app in the US.

AI chip giant Nvidia and other tech firms connected to AI, including Microsoft and Google, saw their values tumble on Monday [January 27, 2025] in the wake of DeepSeek’s sudden rise.

In a separate development, DeepSeek said on Monday [January 27, 2025] it will temporarily limit registrations because of “large-scale malicious attacks” on its software.

The DeepSeek chatbot was reportedly developed for a fraction of the cost of its rivals, raising questions about the future of America’s AI dominance and the scale of investments US firms are planning.

DeepSeek is powered by the open source DeepSeek-V3 model, which its researchers claim was trained for around $6m – significantly less than the billions spent by rivals.

But this claim has been disputed by others in AI.

The researchers say they use already existing technology, as well as open source code – software that can be used, modified or distributed by anybody free of charge.

DeepSeek’s emergence comes as the US is restricting the sale of the advanced chip technology that powers AI to China.

To continue their work without steady supplies of imported advanced chips, Chinese AI developers have shared their work with each other and experimented with new approaches to the technology.

This has resulted in AI models that require far less computing power than before.

It also means that they cost a lot less than previously thought possible, which has the potential to upend the industry.

After DeepSeek-R1 was launched earlier this month, the company boasted of “performance on par with” one of OpenAI’s latest models when used for tasks such as maths, coding and natural language reasoning.

In Europe, Dutch chip equipment maker ASML ended Monday’s trading with its share price down by more than 7% while shares in Siemens Energy, which makes hardware related to AI, had plunged by a fifth.

“This idea of a low-cost Chinese version hasn’t necessarily been forefront, so it’s taken the market a little bit by surprise,” said Fiona Cincotta, senior market analyst at City Index.

“So, if you suddenly get this low-cost AI model, then that’s going to raise concerns over the profits of rivals, particularly given the amount that they’ve already invested in more expensive AI infrastructure.”

Singapore-based technology equity adviser Vey-Sern Ling told the BBC it could “potentially derail the investment case for the entire AI supply chain”.

Who founded DeepSeek?

The company was founded in 2023 by Liang Wenfeng in Hangzhou, a city in southeastern China.

The 40-year-old, an information and electronic engineering graduate, also founded the hedge fund that backed DeepSeek.

He reportedly built up a store of Nvidia A100 chips, now banned from export to China.

Experts believe this collection – which some estimates put at 50,000 – led him to launch DeepSeek, by pairing these chips with cheaper, lower-end ones that are still available to import.

Mr Liang was recently seen at a meeting between industry experts and the Chinese premier Li Qiang.

In a July 2024 interview with The China Academy, Mr Liang said he was surprised by the reaction to the previous version of his AI model.

“We didn’t expect pricing to be such a sensitive issue,” he said.

“We were simply following our own pace, calculating costs, and setting prices accordingly.”

A January 28, 2025 article by Daria Solovieva for salon.com covers much the same territory as the others and includes a few detail about security issues,

The pace at which U.S. consumers have embraced DeepSeek is raising national security concerns similar to those surrounding TikTok, the social media platform that faces a ban unless it is sold to a non-Chinese company.

The U.S. Supreme Court this month upheld a federal law that requires TikTok’s sale. The Court sided with the U.S. government’s argument that the app can collect and track data on its 170 million American users. President Donald Trump has paused enforcement of the ban until April to try to negotiate a deal.

But “the threat posed by DeepSeek is more direct and acute than TikTok,” Luke de Pulford, co-founder and executive director of non-profit Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, told Salon.

DeepSeek is a fully Chinese company and is subject to Communist Party control, unlike TikTok which positions itself as independent from parent company ByteDance, he said. 

“DeepSeek logs your keystrokes, device data, location and so much other information and stores it all in China,” de Pulford said. “So you’ll never know if the Chinese state has been crunching your data to gain strategic advantage, and DeepSeek would be breaking the law if they told you.”  

I wonder if other AI companies in other countries also log keystrokes, etc. Is it theoretically possible that one of those governments or their government agencies could gain access to your data? It’s obvious in China but people in other countries may have the issues.

Censorship: DeepSeek and ChatGPT

Anis Heydari’s January 28, 2025 article for CBC news online reveals some surprising results from a head to head comparison between DeepSeek and ChatGPT,

The Chinese-made AI chatbot DeepSeek may not always answer some questions about topics that are often censored by Beijing, according to tests run by CBC News and The Associated Press, and is providing different information than its U.S.-owned competitor ChatGPT.

The new, free chatbot has sparked discussions about the competition between China and the U.S. in AI development, with many users flocking to test it. 

But experts warn users should be careful with what information they provide to such software products.

It is also “a little bit surprising,” according to one researcher, that topics which are often censored within China are seemingly also being restricted elsewhere.

“A lot of services will differentiate based on where the user is coming from when deciding to deploy censorship or not,” said Jeffrey Knockel, who researches software censorship and surveillance at the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy.

“With this one, it just seems to be censoring everyone.”

Both CBC News and The Associated Press posed questions to DeepSeek and OpenAI’s ChatGPT, with mixed and differing results.

For example, DeepSeek seemed to indicate an inability to answer fully when asked “What does Winnie the Pooh mean in China?” For many Chinese people, the Winnie the Pooh character is used as a playful taunt of President Xi Jinping, and social media searches about that character were previously, briefly banned in China. 

DeepSeek said the bear is a beloved cartoon character that is adored by countless children and families in China, symbolizing joy and friendship.

Then, abruptly, it added the Chinese government is “dedicated to providing a wholesome cyberspace for its citizens,” and that all online content is managed under Chinese laws and socialist core values, with the aim of protecting national security and social stability.

CBC News was unable to produce this response. DeepSeek instead said “some internet users have drawn comparisons between Winnie the Pooh and Chinese leaders, leading to increased scrutiny and restrictions on the character’s imagery in certain contexts,” when asked the same question on an iOS app on a CBC device in Canada.

Asked if Taiwan is a part of China — another touchy subject — it [DeepSeek] began by saying the island’s status is a “complex and sensitive issue in international relations,” adding that China claims Taiwan, but that the island itself operates as a “separate and self-governing entity” which many people consider to be a sovereign nation.

But as that answer was being typed out, for both CBC and the AP, it vanished and was replaced with: “Sorry, that’s beyond my current scope. Let’s talk about something else.”

… Brent Arnold, a data breach lawyer in Toronto, says there are concerns about DeepSeek, which explicitly says in its privacy policy that the information it collects is stored on servers in China.

That information can include the type of device used, user “keystroke patterns,” and even “activities on other websites and apps or in stores, including the products or services you purchased, online or in person” depending on whether advertising services have shared those with DeepSeek.

“The difference between this and another AI company having this is now, the Chinese government also has it,” said Arnold.

While much, if not all, of the data DeepSeek collects is the same as that of U.S.-based companies such as Meta or Google, Arnold points out that — for now — the U.S. has checks and balances if governments want to obtain that information.

“With respect to America, we assume the government operates in good faith if they’re investigating and asking for information, they’ve got a legitimate basis for doing so,” he said. 

Right now, Arnold says it’s not accurate to compare Chinese and U.S. authorities in terms of their ability to take personal information. But that could change.

“I would say it’s a false equivalency now. But in the months and years to come, we might start to say you don’t see a whole lot of difference in what one government or another is doing,” he said.

Graham Fraser’s January 28, 2025 article comparing DeepSeek to the others (OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini) for BBC news online took a different approach,

Writing Assistance

When you ask ChatGPT what the most popular reasons to use ChatGPT are, it says that assisting people to write is one of them.

From gathering and summarising information in a helpful format to even writing blog posts on a topic, ChatGPT has become an AI companion for many across different workplaces.

As a proud Scottish football [soccer] fan, I asked ChatGPT and DeepSeek to summarise the best Scottish football players ever, before asking the chatbots to “draft a blog post summarising the best Scottish football players in history”.

DeepSeek responded in seconds, with a top ten list – Kenny Dalglish of Liverpool and Celtic was number one. It helpfully summarised which position the players played in, their clubs, and a brief list of their achievements.

DeepSeek also detailed two non-Scottish players – Rangers legend Brian Laudrup, who is Danish, and Celtic hero Henrik Larsson. For the latter, it added “although Swedish, Larsson is often included in discussions of Scottish football legends due to his impact at Celtic”.

For its subsequent blog post, it did go into detail of Laudrup’s nationality before giving a succinct account of the careers of the players.

ChatGPT’s answer to the same question contained many of the same names, with “King Kenny” once again at the top of the list.

Its detailed blog post briefly and accurately went into the careers of all the players.

It concluded: “While the game has changed over the decades, the impact of these Scottish greats remains timeless.” Indeed.

For this fun test, DeepSeek was certainly comparable to its best-known US competitor.

Coding

Brainstorming ideas

Learning and research

Steaming ahead

The tasks I set the chatbots were simple but they point to something much more significant – the winner of the so-called AI race is far from decided.

For all the vast resources US firms have poured into the tech, their Chinese rival has shown their achievements can be emulated.

Reception from the science community

Days before the news outlets discovered DeepSeek, the company published a paper about its Large Language Models (LLMs) and its new chatbot on arXiv. Here’s a little more information,

DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning

[over 100 authors are listed]

We introduce our first-generation reasoning models, DeepSeek-R1-Zero and DeepSeek-R1. DeepSeek-R1-Zero, a model trained via large-scale reinforcement learning (RL) without supervised fine-tuning (SFT) as a preliminary step, demonstrates remarkable reasoning capabilities. Through RL, DeepSeek-R1-Zero naturally emerges with numerous powerful and intriguing reasoning behaviors. However, it encounters challenges such as poor readability, and language mixing. To address these issues and further enhance reasoning performance, we introduce DeepSeek-R1, which incorporates multi-stage training and cold-start data before RL. DeepSeek-R1 achieves performance comparable to OpenAI-o1-1217 on reasoning tasks. To support the research community, we open-source DeepSeek-R1-Zero, DeepSeek-R1, and six dense models (1.5B, 7B, 8B, 14B, 32B, 70B) distilled from DeepSeek-R1 based on Qwen and Llama.

Cite as: arXiv:2501.12948 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2501.12948v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.12948

Submission history

From: Wenfeng Liang [view email]
[v1] Wed, 22 Jan 2025 15:19:35 UTC (928 KB)

You can also find a PDF version of the paper here or another online version here at Hugging Face.

As for the science community’s response, the title of Elizabeth Gibney’s January 23, 2025 article “China’s cheap, open AI model DeepSeek thrills scientists” for Nature says it all, Note: Links have been removed,

A Chinese-built large language model called DeepSeek-R1 is thrilling scientists as an affordable and open rival to ‘reasoning’ models such as OpenAI’s o1.

These models generate responses step-by-step, in a process analogous to human reasoning. This makes them more adept than earlier language models at solving scientific problems and could make them useful in research. Initial tests of R1, released on 20 January, show that its performance on certain tasks in chemistry, mathematics and coding is on par with that of o1 — which wowed researchers when it was released by OpenAI in September.

“This is wild and totally unexpected,” Elvis Saravia, an AI researcher and co-founder of the UK-based AI consulting firm DAIR.AI, wrote on X.

R1 stands out for another reason. DeepSeek, the start-up in Hangzhou that built the model, has released it as ‘open-weight’, meaning that researchers can study and build on the algorithm. Published under an MIT licence, the model can be freely reused but is not considered fully open source, because its training data has not been made available.

“The openness of DeepSeek is quite remarkable,” says Mario Krenn, leader of the Artificial Scientist Lab at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Light in Erlangen, Germany. By comparison, o1 and other models built by OpenAI in San Francisco, California, including its latest effort o3 are “essentially black boxes”, he says.

DeepSeek hasn’t released the full cost of training R1, but it is charging people using its interface around one-thirtieth of what o1 costs to run. The firm has also created mini ‘distilled’ versions of R1 to allow researchers with limited computing power to play with the model. An “experiment that cost more than £300 with o1, cost less than $10 with R1,” says Krenn. “This is a dramatic difference which will certainly play a role its future adoption.”

The kerfuffle has died down for now.

UK AI Summit (November 1 – 2, 2023) at Bletchley Park finishes

This is the closest I’ve ever gotten to writing a gossip column (see my October 18, 2023 posting and scroll down to the “Insight into political jockeying [i.e., some juicy news bits]” subhead )for the first half.

Given the role that Canadian researchers (for more about that see my May 25, 2023 posting and scroll down to “The Panic” subhead) have played in the development of artificial intelligence (AI), it’s been surprising that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) has given very little coverage to the event in the UK. However, there is an October 31, 2023 article by Kelvin Chang and Jill Lawless for the Associated Press posted on the CBC website,

Digital officials, tech company bosses and researchers are converging Wednesday [November 1, 2023] at a former codebreaking spy base [Bletchley Park] near London [UK] to discuss and better understand the extreme risks posed by cutting-edge artificial intelligence.

The two-day summit focusing on so-called frontier AI notched up an early achievement with officials from 28 nations and the European Union signing an agreement on safe and responsible development of the technology.

Frontier AI is shorthand for the latest and most powerful general purpose systems that take the technology right up to its limits, but could come with as-yet-unknown dangers. They’re underpinned by foundation models, which power chatbots like OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Bard and are trained on vast pools of information scraped from the internet.

The AI Safety Summit is a labour of love for British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, a tech-loving former banker who wants the U.K. to be a hub for computing innovation and has framed the summit as the start of a global conversation about the safe development of AI.[emphasis mine]

But U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris may divert attention Wednesday [November 1, 2023] with a separate speech in London setting out the Biden administration’s more hands-on approach.

Canada’s Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry Francois-Philippe Champagne said AI would not be constrained by national borders, and therefore interoperability between different regulations being put in place was important.

As the meeting began, U.K. Technology Secretary Michelle Donelan announced that the 28 countries and the European Union had signed the Bletchley Declaration on AI Safety. It outlines the “urgent need to understand and collectively manage potential risks through a new joint global effort.”

South Korea has agreed to host a mini virtual AI summit in six months, followed by an in-person one in France in a year’s time, the U.K. government said.

Chris Stokel-Walker’s October 31, 2023 article for Fast Company presents a critique of the summit prior to the opening, Note: Links have been removed,

… one problem, critics say: The summit, which begins on November 1, is too insular and its participants are homogeneous—an especially damning critique for something that’s trying to tackle the huge, possibly intractable questions around AI. The guest list is made up of 100 of the great and good of governments, including representatives from China, Europe, and Vice President Kamala Harris. And it also includes luminaries within the tech sector. But precious few others—which means a lack of diversity in discussions about the impact of AI.

“Self-regulation didn’t work for social media companies, it didn’t work for the finance sector, and it won’t work for AI,” says Carsten Jung, a senior economist at the Institute for Public Policy Research, a progressive think tank that recently published a report advising on key policy pillars it believes should be discussed at the summit. (Jung isn’t on the guest list.) “We need to learn lessons from our past mistakes and create a strong supervisory hub for all things AI, right from the start.”

Kriti Sharma, chief product officer for legal tech at Thomson Reuters, who will be watching from the wings, not receiving an invite, is similarly circumspect about the goals of the summit. “I hope to see leaders moving past the doom to take practical steps to address known issues and concerns in AI, giving businesses the clarity they urgently need,” she says. “Ideally, I’d like to see movement towards putting some fundamental AI guardrails in place, in the form of a globally aligned, cross-industry regulatory framework.”

But it’s uncertain whether the summit will indeed discuss the more practical elements of AI. Already it seems as if the gathering is designed to quell public fears around AI while convincing those developing AI products that the U.K. will not take too strong an approach in regulating the technology, perhaps in contrasts to near neighbors in the European Union, who have been open about their plans to ensure the technology is properly fenced in to ensure user safety.

Already, there are suggestions that the summit has been drastically downscaled in its ambitions, with others, including the United States, where President Biden just announced a sweeping executive order on AI, and the United Nations, which announced its AI advisory board last week.

Ingrid Lunden in her October 31, 2023 article for TechCrunch is more blunt,

As we wrote yesterday, the U.K. is partly using this event — the first of its kind, as it has pointed out — to stake out a territory for itself on the AI map — both as a place to build AI businesses, but also as an authority in the overall field.

That, coupled with the fact that the topics and approach are focused on potential issues, the affair feel like one very grand photo opportunity and PR exercise, a way for the government to show itself off in the most positive way at the same time that it slides down in the polls and it also faces a disastrous, bad-look inquiry into how it handled the COVID-19 pandemic. On the other hand, the U.K. does have the credentials for a seat at the table, so if the government is playing a hand here, it’s able to do it because its cards are strong.

The subsequent guest list, predictably, leans more toward organizations and attendees from the U.K. It’s also almost as revealing to see who is not participating.

Lunden’s October 30, 2023 article “Existential risk? Regulatory capture? AI for one and all? A look at what’s going on with AI in the UK” includes a little ‘inside’ information,

That high-level aspiration is also reflected in who is taking part: top-level government officials, captains of industry, and notable thinkers in the space are among those expected to attend. (Latest late entry: Elon Musk; latest no’s reportedly include President Biden, Justin Trudeau and Olaf Scholz.) [Scholz’s no was mentioned in my my October 18, 2023 posting]

It sounds exclusive, and it is: “Golden tickets” (as Azeem Azhar, a London-based tech founder and writer, describes them) to the Summit are in scarce supply. Conversations will be small and mostly closed. So because nature abhors a vacuum, a whole raft of other events and news developments have sprung up around the Summit, looping in the many other issues and stakeholders at play. These have included talks at the Royal Society (the U.K.’s national academy of sciences); a big “AI Fringe” conference that’s being held across multiple cities all week; many announcements of task forces; and more.

Earlier today, a group of 100 trade unions and rights campaigners sent a letter to the prime minister saying that the government is “squeezing out” their voices in the conversation by not having them be a part of the Bletchley Park event. (They may not have gotten their golden tickets, but they were definitely canny how they objected: The group publicized its letter by sharing it with no less than the Financial Times, the most elite of economic publications in the country.)

And normal people are not the only ones who have been snubbed. “None of the people I know have been invited,” Carissa Véliz, a tutor in philosophy at the University of Oxford, said during one of the AI Fringe events today [October 30, 2023].

More broadly, the summit has become an anchor and only one part of the bigger conversation going on right now. Last week, U.K. prime minister Rishi Sunak outlined an intention to launch a new AI safety institute and a research network in the U.K. to put more time and thought into AI implications; a group of prominent academics, led by Yoshua Bengio [University of Montreal, Canada) and Geoffrey Hinton [University of Toronto, Canada], published a paper called “Managing AI Risks in an Era of Rapid Progress” to put their collective oar into the the waters; and the UN announced its own task force to explore the implications of AI. Today [October 30, 2023], U.S. president Joe Biden issued the country’s own executive order to set standards for AI security and safety.

There are a couple more articles* from the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) covering the start of the summit, a November 1, 2023 article by Zoe Kleinman & Tom Gerken, “King Charles: Tackle AI risks with urgency and unity” and another November 1, 2023 article this time by Tom Gerken & Imran Rahman-Jones, “Rishi Sunak: AI firms cannot ‘mark their own homework‘.”

Politico offers more US-centric coverage of the event with a November 1, 2023 article by Mark Scott, Tom Bristow and Gian Volpicelli, “US and China join global leaders to lay out need for AI rulemaking,” a November 1, 2023 article by Vincent Manancourt and Eugene Daniels, “Kamala Harris seizes agenda as Rishi Sunak’s AI summit kicks off,” and a November 1, 2023 article by Vincent Manancourt, Eugene Daniels and Brendan Bordelon, “‘Existential to who[m]?’ US VP Kamala Harris urges focus on near-term AI risks.”

I want to draw special attention to the second Politico article,

Kamala just showed Rishi who’s boss.

As British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s showpiece artificial intelligence event kicked off in Bletchley Park on Wednesday, 50 miles south in the futuristic environs of the American Embassy in London, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris laid out her vision for how the world should govern artificial intelligence.

It was a raw show of U.S. power on the emerging technology.

Did she or was this an aggressive interpretation of events?

*’article’ changed to ‘articles’ on January 17, 2024.