With the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) technology, developing sovereign AI has become an important issue for many countries to protect their digital sovereignty.
A country needs to independently develop and control AI technology and infrastructure to avoid relying on foreign technology and ensure that their economy, culture and society are free from foreign influence.
With the rise of China’s AI capabilities, Taiwan must be prudent and develop its own sovereign AI to ensure national security and technological autonomy.
In Taiwan, although there is a Chinese-language version of OpenAI’s ChatGPT, using it comes with some problems.
Due to disparities in size, population and the amount of materials online between Taiwan and China, only a small proportion of data used to train ChatGPT’s Chinese-language AI model is from Taiwan.
As a result, the tone, terms and cultural background of ChatGPT’s Chinese-language AI model are more like the language used in China.
For example, for the word meaning “lean,” ChatGPT’s Chinese-language version uses the word used in China, “jingyi” (精益), rather than the word used in Taiwan, “jingshi” (精實).
For “digital transformation,” it uses China’s “shuzi zhuanxing” (數字轉型), rather than Taiwan’s “shuweizhuanxing” (數位轉型).
For “sustainable development,” it uses China’s “kechixu fazhan” (可持續發展), rather than Taiwan’s “yongxu fazhan” (永續發展).
For “through,” it uses China’s “tongguo” (通過), rather than Taiwan’s “xiuguo” (透過).
These subtle differences could gradually influence the language spoken in Taiwan, which could eventually shape people’s views and cultural preferences.
China has developed its own AI in recent years, launching large language models (LLMs) such as Ernie Bot (文心一言).
If Taiwanese begin using such products on a large scale, China would not only be able to shape their thinking patterns, but also influence Taiwan’s society, culture and values.
Such cultural infiltration would pose a threat to the nation’s digital sovereignty and likely damage its democratic resilience.
To defend its digital sovereignty, Taiwan must begin developing its own AI technology and infrastructure. The Trustworthy AI Dialogue Engine (TAIDE) led by the National Science and Technology Council is an important start.
Based on Meta’s open-source language model Llama 3, TAIDE is trained with traditional Chinese language data, giving TAIDE local language advantages when processing Traditional Chinese conversations.
Through this move, Taiwan can avoid the erosion of its language and culture by foreign technologies and provide AI services more in line with local needs.
However, there are still deficiencies with the model training data and scale of TAIDE. More localized data is needed to improve its understanding and communication capabilities.
Many countries are developing their own sovereign AI, including France and the UK, which have invested resources into developing AI that reflects their language and culture.
France’s Mistral AI and the UK’s BritGPT are typical examples. Likewise, Singapore is partnering with Nvidia Corp to develop the SEA-LION LLM model specifically designed for Southeast Asian languages and cultures, demonstrating the importance of sovereign AI.
The role of government cannot be ignored. Government can lead the development of AI through the digitization of public services. Singapore’s Pair project, which uses generative AI to reduce the workload of civil servants and ensure data security, is a successful case that Taiwan can learn from.
Taiwan should boldly experiment with and implement AI technology to improve the efficiency of its public services and aid the development of the TAIDE.
This would help the nation maintain its autonomy and resist the impact of foreign technologies on its culture and society.
Liao Ming-hui is an assistant researcher at the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
Taiwan People’s Party Legislator-at-large Liu Shu-pin (劉書彬) asked Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) a question on Tuesday last week about President William Lai’s (賴清德) decision in March to officially define the People’s Republic of China (PRC), as governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as a foreign hostile force. Liu objected to Lai’s decision on two grounds. First, procedurally, suggesting that Lai did not have the right to unilaterally make that decision, and that Cho should have consulted with the Executive Yuan before he endorsed it. Second, Liu objected over national security concerns, saying that the CCP and Chinese President Xi
RSS