Competition authorities need to move fast and break up AI | 如何打破大型科技公司在AI领域的过度集中? - FT中文网
登录×
电子邮件/用户名
密码
记住我
请输入邮箱和密码进行绑定操作:
请输入手机号码,通过短信验证(目前仅支持中国大陆地区的手机号):
请您阅读我们的用户注册协议隐私权保护政策,点击下方按钮即视为您接受。
FT英语电台

Competition authorities need to move fast and break up AI
如何打破大型科技公司在AI领域的过度集中?

Unless regulators act, Big Tech’s dominance over the digital economy will be cemented
监管机构若不采取行动,大型科技公司对数字经济的主导地位将持续巩固。
00:00

undefined

The writer is a former senior adviser on AI at the Federal Trade Commission and managing director of the AI Now Institute. Amba Kak also contributed to this article

If AI is poised to occupy an increasingly central place in our digital infrastructure, it’s time to think long and hard about who will control it.

At present, Big Tech companies such as Microsoft, Google and Amazon are positioned to strengthen their foothold on the digital economy, consolidating their power by dominating both the commercial AI industry and the horizon for future AI research. Without the robust enforcement of competition laws, generative AI could irreversibly cement Big Tech’s advantage, giving a handful of companies power over technology that mediates much of our lives.

There are several reasons why, as things stand, there is no AI without Big Tech. The biggest technology companies have significant first-mover advantages in this market. Most notably, they have access to the resources large-scale AI is dependent on, from massive data sets to the computational power to process them, to the skills and expertise needed to build these AI systems.

These resource dependencies are a chokepoint even for companies such as Microsoft and Alphabet, Google’s parent company. For example, Alphabet recently combined its AI teams, forcing them to overcome intense internal rivalries, while Microsoft is limiting internal access to AI hardware to keep Bing’s GPT-4 chatbot and its new Office 365 tools up and running. Sam Altman, chief executive of ChatGPT-maker OpenAI, described his company’s computational costs as “eye-watering”. While new start-ups are appearing, OpenAI, Anthropic, Cohere and even the open-source company Hugging Face all have contracts with the big three hyperscalers.

Given this resource intensity, there will be significant pressure to leverage generative AI systems for profit. Here too, Big Tech companies are best positioned. They already operate digital ecosystems across which generative AI systems can be applied, and can maximise their dominance over platforms and markets.

OpenAI’s release of an app marketplace is an indicator that it intends to operate from the same playbook, by offering a product and operating a marketplace in which to compete with other companies. Amazon’s launch of its generative AI cloud service Bedrock is also a case in point: Amazon will both offer its own Titan generative AI models and operate a platform, tied to Amazon Web Services, on which companies can access other generative AI services. This structure means Amazon is well placed to secure its dominant position in the cloud computing market.

If anti-competitive conduct by Big Tech companies was a problem in the past, the introduction of generative AI is set to make things far worse.

That is why we need early and sure-footed enforcement of competition law to shape the direction of generative AI. This is an opportune moment for intervention: there is already a push for more muscular enforcement of the laws to address the concentration of power in Big Tech.

The US Federal Trade Commission has demonstrated an appetite for early intervention through its challenge to Meta’s takeover of the VR studio Within, indicating that it will be more aggressive in targeting future harms to competition before they materialise.

FTC chair Lina Khan has expressed concern about the lack of competition in AI, noting that in transitional moments like this one, incumbent companies often “panic” and attempt to block new entrants through unlawful tactics to protect their dominance. Support for this stance is reinforced by the White House, through its executive order outlining its intention of curbing industry consolidation.

Intervention is needed on several fronts. For one, companies must be held accountable for attempting to stave off competition — starting with Microsoft’s recent move to limit access to data for competitor chatbot-search engines. The resource dependencies in AI must also be addressed: regulators in the UK, Japan, the Netherlands, France and most recently the US have all identified concerns with the concentration in the cloud market. The emerging consensus among regulators about the dangers of cloud monopolies should galvanise structural interventions that anticipate future attempts at consolidation by these companies.

Generative AI could irreversibly cement the Big Tech advantage. But concentration in the tech industry emerged partly because lax regulators missed many opportunities to intervene. This time around, we should learn from past mistakes and act before the market is cornered. It’s now regulators, not companies, who need to move fast and break things up.

版权声明:本文版权归FT中文网所有,未经允许任何单位或个人不得转载,复制或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵权必究。

华尔街对大型科技公司2000亿美元的人工智能支出感到担忧

本周,美国四大互联网集团的AI效益初现端倪,但也警告说将增加支出。

地中海已经变成危险的“汽油桶”了吗?

暴雨的部分原因是海水温度的危险上升。

从错失的投资机会中得到的教训

我是如何错过OpenAI、BrewDog和英国电信的?

决定特朗普贸易政策的内部竞争

在这位共和党候选人的第一个总统任期,其政府内部内斗不断。

政府顾问表示,英国应简化人工智能专家的签证程序

马特•克利福德关于促进科技产业发展的建议还包括设立数据中心特区。

为什么卡玛拉•哈里斯会赢

因为这仍然是经济问题,傻瓜。
设置字号×
最小
较小
默认
较大
最大
分享×