AI-ethics will drive the geopolitics of technology

6 May 2020

Ethics for artificial intelligence (AI) could put technology companies in a geopolitical hotseat. Without a strategy, these firms could clash with governments and institutions looking to grow their footprint in Asia.

The seeds of this are already being laid down. In February, 2020, the Catholic Church partnered with IBM and Microsoft to build AI-ethics. The next versions of Watson (IBM) or Azure (Microsoft) may come pre-loaded with Christian ethics. This partnership, between religion and industry, may present countries with a new idea to grow power.

Could governments start forcing technology companies to program AI with local beliefs, political attitudes and traditions? If so, for the first time, ethics may define business success.

The part of the world where technology firms will face the biggest headaches with AI-ethics is in the Asia-Pacific. Here, a multitude of different cultures, institutions and geopolitical tensions coexist with one another in a pressure cooker that is already whistling.

Whose ethics will Asia use?

In Asia, technology firms may face a two-front battle. First, to sell AI in different markets, they may have to program specific ethics. Take India. For several years, as nationalism has grown in India, so too has India’s resistance to foreign technology. New Delhi passed data localization laws, challenging data monopolies held by big technology firms and enacted tough rulings around e-commerce to protect local suppliers.

The Chinese internet regulator is ordering internet companies to program their algorithms in ways that push Chinese values. In other words, AI is being used to promote Chinese culture

Next, to keep its edge in AI, India may enact “ethical laws.” These laws may require foreign firms to load their AI with specific ethics. If technology firms want to sell AI in India, they will have to contextualize their AI.

But, what if other governments are not happy with this? China may reject this and not allow its technology firms to program Indian AI-ethics. This could lead to a new clash between India and China. Except, instead of territory or maritime lanes, New Delhi and Beijing may be fighting over what ethics should be programmed into AI.

Second, governments may force their own technology firms to program certain ethics from get-go. This would be a new way to grow soft power.

This is already happening in China, albeit in a different way. The Chinese internet regulator is ordering internet companies to program their algorithms in ways that push Chinese values. In other words, AI is being used to promote Chinese culture. The next step may be for China to force its technology firms to program certain ethics into AI.

This may not go over well with other nations. And, it may affect commercial success of technology firms.

For instance, Malaysia has purchased large amounts of AI from China. One of these services, City Brain, is an AI-service from Alibaba that makes cities “smart.” How will Malaysia react if City Brain suddenly starts promoting Chinese culture to Malaysian citizens? Malaysia may see this as foreign interference, through culture. And, Malaysia may force Alibaba to change the ethics or face a ban.

Except, Alibaba will be caught between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, its home country, China, wants it to have certain ethics. But, on the other hand, markets it wants to sell into are asking for a different set of ethics. This is a predicament that technology firms all over the planet could face as the battle for AI-ethics intensifies.

What role will institutions play?

As countries clash over AI-ethics, leading to confusion and chaos, institutions may see a new opportunity to lead. But, institutions face their own set of challenges.

First, institutions may be seen as playing into the hands of certain countries. In December, 2019, reports emerged that Chinese firms were “shaping” the United Nation's AI-rules. Similarly, if the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) builds AI-ethics, there may be suspicion as to who these ethics benefit. What if they benefit Japanese or South Korean firms over the rest of Asia?

Second, today, there are more institutions in Asia than ever before. Alongside ASEAN, there is the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Any of these institutions could introduce AI-ethics. This puts the rest of Asia in a difficult position. Whose ethics they adopt may affect regional relations. Yesterday, nations showed their geopolitical alignment by allowing military bases or buying currency. Tomorrow, they may show alignment by using ethics from a specific institution/region.

Third, institutions will be competing with individual countries over AI-ethics. What incentives do countries have to follow institutions when they can create their own ethics or force foreign firms to integrate certain ethics? The current Covid-19 pandemic is showing how fast institutions are losing relevance (i.e. World Health Organization). The battle for AI-ethics may only accelerate this.

Conclusion

As a global battle for ethics begins, several different battles are taking place at the same time. On one hand, governments want to protect society and local beliefs. On the other hand, institutions want to lead the world. In the middle are companies who have the ultimate say (they are the ones developing the AI) and cities that are becoming mini-countries.

Unlike current battles around AI, like those for patents or chips, which are about industry, economy and intellectual property, the battle for AI-ethics is different. It is more personal. It is about history, tradition and ideals.

This makes AI-ethics a new kind of geopolitics. And, simultaneously, different stories are unfolding. For companies, AI-ethics may define success. For countries, AI-ethics may expand footprint. For cities, AI-ethics may lead to new autonomy. And, for religion, AI-ethics may be a new way to play a role in world affairs. As for who succeeds, who loses and what happens in the end, well, that story is yet to be written.

DISCLAIMER: All views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent that of the 9DASHLINE.com platform.

Author biography

Abishur Prakash is a geopolitical futurist at Center for Innovating the Future where he helps companies succeed in tech-driven geopolitics. He has authored four books including Next Geopolitics: Vol 1&2, Go A.I. and The Age of Killer Robots. Image credit: CC BY-NC 4.0/NASA Johnson/Flickr

Faultlines9DLMay 6, 2020China, Artificial Intelligence, A.I., India, Indonesia