Biden Battered Over AI Diffusion Policy by info.odysseyx@gmail.com January 14, 2025 written by info.odysseyx@gmail.com January 14, 2025 0 comment 15 views 15 The Biden administration’s eleventh-hour move to regulate how American AI technology is shared with the world is drawing criticism from the nation’s tech sector. According to the White House, the Interim Final Rule (IFR) on Artificial Intelligence Diffusion streamlines licensing barriers for both large and small chip orders, strengthens US AI leadership, and provides clarity to allied and partner countries on how they can benefit from AI. It added that it builds on previous chip controls by thwarting piracy, closing other flaws and increasing AI security standards. The new rules are necessary, it maintained, ” “(I)t is imperative that we do not outrun these critical technologies and that the world’s AI runs on American rails,” it stressed. “Working with AI companies and foreign governments is critical to establishing security and trust standards as they build their AI ecosystems.” Stephen Kowski, Field CTO Slash NextA computer and network security firm in Pleasanton, California, explained that the rule seeks to strike an essential balance between protecting advanced AI capabilities and maintaining technological leadership. “Given the increasing sophistication of cyber threats and the potential misuse of AI systems, securing AI infrastructure and computing resources is critical,” he told TechNewsWorld. “Stronger controls on AI chip exports can help prevent advanced capabilities from being used in ways that could compromise security or enable malicious activities.” “Fundamentally, economic innovation and national security are intertwined,” added Jeff Lay, VP for Global Government Affairs and Public Policy. Safety scorecardA cyber security rating company in New York City. “Global competition in sourcing and computing is critical to sustainable progress in the AI race and to overcoming China’s ambitions,” he told TechNewsWorld. “There are connections to concerns about digital vulnerabilities that exist for Chinese backends and American data and IP. Reducing interdependence serves as an important national security imperative and allows us to strengthen our supply chains, which, as seen by China’s saber-rattling on Taiwan, represent significant vulnerability.” Derailing economic growth Critics of the rule, which is set to take effect in 120 days, claim it will do more harm than good. “Today, companies, startups and universities around the world are using mainstream AI to advance healthcare, agriculture, manufacturing, education and countless other fields, driving economic growth and unlocking the nation’s potential,” said Ned Finkel, VP of Government Affairs at Nvidia, one of the chips used for AI applications. The chief manufacturer, wrote on a company blog “Building on American technology, the adoption of AI around the world has led to growth and opportunities for industries at home and abroad,” he continued. “This global progress is now under threat. The Biden administration now wants to limit access to mainstream computing applications with its unprecedented and confusing ‘AI diffusion’ rules, which threaten to derail global innovation and economic growth.” “In its final days in office, the Biden administration has attempted to undermine America’s leadership with more than 200 pages of regulatory morass, drafted in secret and without proper legislative review,” he claimed. “This massive overreach will impose bureaucratic controls on how America’s leading semiconductors, computers, systems and even software are designed and marketed worldwide.” “And by trying to rig market outcomes and stifle competition — the lifeblood of innovation — the Biden administration’s new rules threaten to erode America’s hard-won technological advantage,” he argued. “Shrouded in the guise of an ‘anti-China’ move, these rules will do nothing to enhance US security,” he added. “The new rules will govern technology worldwide, including technology already widely available in mainstream gaming PCs and consumer hardware. Instead of mitigating any threat, the new Biden rules will only weaken America’s global competitiveness, undermining the innovation that keeps the United States ahead. Policy gaps could undermine US AI leadership Daniel Castro, vice president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a research and public policy organization in Washington, DC, argued that the IFR raises serious concerns about its potential impact on US competitiveness, global AI leadership and international alliances. “By pushing other countries to choose between the United States and China, the administration risks alienating key partners and inadvertently strengthening China’s position in the global AI ecosystem,” he said in a statement. “Faced with such an ultimatum, many countries may opt to offer unfettered access to AI technologies vital to their economic growth and digital future – and currently, only one country is threatening to cut them off from these technologies.” Moreover, Castro added, the IFR’s narrow focus on regulating closed-weight AI models while not addressing open-weight equivalents creates a glaring and counterproductive imbalance. “U.S. companies developing proprietary AI models will face tougher regulatory burdens that foreign competitors can avoid by using open-source alternatives,” he explained. “This policy undercuts American companies in global markets and fails to meaningfully mitigate the risks that the regulation is meant to address.” “Instead of enhancing national security or protecting U.S. technological leadership, the administration’s approach risks adversaries accelerating their advances and outpacing the U.S. in these critical domains,” he asserted. “The administration’s initial restrictions on chip exports were misguided, and the IFR compounded this misstep,” he added. “Instead of reforming the administration, the administration persists with hostile policies that undermine U.S. leadership in AI while providing a clear path to dominance. The United States should work to solidify its position as a world leader in AI by fostering innovation, strengthening alliances, and ensuring the broad availability of U.S. technologies to legitimate users worldwide.” “A strategy of competition — not regulation — will best serve America’s interests in the digital economy of the future,” Castro maintained. Short term gain, long term loss While agreeing with the underlying objectives of the IFR, University of Pennsylvania engineering professor Dr. Benjamin Lee Disagree with the approach taken to pursue these objectives. “Retaining U.S. leadership in artificial intelligence — both hardware architecture and software models — is essential to national security and economic strength,” he told TechNewsWorld. However, Lee noted that US leadership means its companies build a hardware and software ecosystem that forms the basis of global AI computing. “While the administration’s rules and export controls create a narrow, short-term benefit, they could create a broader, long-term loss for American technological leadership,” he said. “In the short term, export controls will slow some countries’ deployment of the most advanced GPUs and largest AI data centers,” he explained. “But in the long run, export controls will force other countries to develop their own hardware architectures or software models.” “Much of this technology relies on openly released resources or code, lowering barriers to creating alternatives to American technology if needed,” he continued. “Export controls may give the United States less visibility into other countries’ technological sophistication.” “Ten years ago, similar export controls on Intel CPUs aimed to slow Chinese growth in high-performance scientific computing led to an explosion of computer engineering within China,” he added. “US experts now have less visibility into the state of Chinese supercomputing.” Unintended consequences of AI lock-in policies IFR is trying to establish “lock-in” at the national level, insists Rob Enderle, president and chief analyst. Enderle GroupBend, Ore. is an advisory services firm. “While lock-in — the practice of forcing customers to use only your technology — can work for a short time, as IBM has demonstrated for decades, it can also create a trend away from your technology, which happened to IBM and now to the U.S. can happen in the US,” he told TechNewsWorld. “This move, while strategically sound, is strategically suicidal for long-term AI technology in the United States.” “I think the rule was well-meaning but poorly thought out by people who don’t understand the technology or the technology that works in the market,” he added. “It would harm US AI interests and security in the long term in exchange for dubious short-term benefits, making US companies unable to compete with their foreign counterparts when US technology is superior and certain not to be the case in the long term.” “China’s power is growing faster than that of the United States largely because the Chinese government is taking a much more aggressive stance to support technological advancements,” Enderle said. “If the United States does not respond appropriately, the technology market will follow oil, trains, electronics and automobiles to other countries, perhaps China.” Chris Bondi, CEO and Co-Founder MimotoA threat detection and response firm in San Francisco, added that one of the most frustrating things about any administration’s decrees is that they are all or nothing. “Regulations are needed, but they should be on access, monitoring and use of AI,” he told TechNewsWorld. “While I agree that the use and protection of AI is critical to US national security and economic strength, such isolationism will undermine innovation,” he said. “Not every breakthrough is produced on US soil. Rather than protection, the bubble that this rule would create would limit the ability of the United States to evolve and compete globally.” Share 0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail info.odysseyx@gmail.com previous post Sample Proposal on “Supporting Green Jobs for Climate Resilient Living” next post How do you design a proposal for long-term community impact? You may also like Ride-sharing and Robotaxis Decopled Revenue Model Problems February 17, 2025 Web Raiders run the Global Brut Force attack from 2.5M IPS February 12, 2025 Generator Tech, Robot, risk of emerging February 11, 2025 Robotaxis is bringing in the lift dallas’ with ‘2026 with’ February 11, 2025 Why did Qualcom lose his first leadership February 10, 2025 Lenovo’s ThinkPad X 1 Carbon has rewrite my MacBook Pro February 5, 2025 Leave a Comment Cancel Reply Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.