Artificial intelligence

As the U.S., EU and China are taking divergent leads in new AI regulations, a new framework for AI diplomacy is emerging, all under the shadow of strategic technological competition.

Which model best suits India: the U.K., U.S., EU, or China path? 

The Indian government has oscillated between a non-regulatory approach, to foster innovation, and a more cautious one, with an emphasis on mitigating user harm.

The U.S. can no longer rely on trade incentives to attract partners. Instead, U.S. foreign policy should center on its dominant position in the next driver of global growth: AI.

The Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) has had a tough awakening that it needs to balance control and censorship with freedom for technological development.

If there is an “AI race” between China and the U.S., it’s not over generative AI or language modeling.

Europe’s data protection regime helped set global standards, but on AI, Asian governments are largely taking a wait-and-see approach.

The next decade may present the U.S.-Korea alliance -- which soon marks 70 years -- with more profound changes than any prior decade. 

The fundamental mindset of Chinese tech companies is still driven by short-term profit, and they have always looked to the state to sponsor technological leaps.

As chatbots are integrated into search results and begin to provide users with answers to politically sensitive questions, they could become subject to manipulation by state actors.

Since AI has become essential to national interest, China may not be willing to leave its development in the hands of private companies.

When the Chinese regime’s information controls intersect with artificial intelligence, they can distort the global information landscape.