Tag: Blockchain

Artificial Intelligence, blockchain association, Blockchains, Taiwan, Yogi Nelson

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE LAWS IN TAIWAN, WHAT INSIDERS SAY

Yogi Nelson

Namaste Yogis.   Welcome to the Blockchain & AI Forum, where technology questions are answered!   Here no question is too mundane.  As a bonus, a proverb is also included.  Today’s question was submitted by Tiffany and she is curious about Taiwan’s recently proposed basic artificial intelligence (AI) law.

Tiffany, you came to the right place.  You are spot on.  Taiwan did recently propose a “basic AI law”.  In Taiwan there is an organization named the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA).  CCIA represents the view of its members on matters pertaining to computer and communication technology.  Let’s examine what the CCIA says regarding the recently proposed basic AI law. 

Click to access CCIA-Comments-on-Taiwans-Proposed-AI-Basic-Law.pdf

CCIA members have reason to rejoice. Why?  Essentially, the CCIA finds the draft law: “generally aligns with best practices, which rely on flexible and international technical standards-based approaches to AI governance that are crucial for supporting innovation and diffusion. Imposing overly-prescriptive rules while the technology still develops could slow innovation and would likely become quickly outdated as global standards and AI technologies and applications are constantly changing.”

The CCIA did submit specific recommendations.  For instance, in Section 3, Principles, CCIA says certain terms need clearer definition, including:  privacy protection and data governance, transparency and explainability, fairness and non-discrimination, and accountability.  Clarity is always better.  However, the overarching theme of CCIA comments is to water down proposed safe guards.  Take the example of discrimination.  The CCIA suggest that protection against discrimination by AI should be minimized as opposed to what the proposed law says—No Discrimination.  If you are on the receiving end of “minimized impact of discrimination” the CCIA is not coming to your rescue because apparently CCIA is okay with a little discrimination.  Not a good look for CCIA.

CCIA submitted comments regarding Article 9 – Harm Prevention.  Article 9 calls on the government to prevent specified harms, including the creation of misleading or falsified information in violation of existing laws, and requests relevant agencies to develop or procure tools or methods for verification.  The CCIA wants a narrower application of Harm Prevention relative to text verification because, says CCIA, the technology is evolving and the emphasis instead should be on efficacy and contextualized to relevant outputs.  CCIA’s explanation is too self-serving for my taste.

Let’s talk about Risk Reduction because nothing in life, much less technology, is risk free.  Article 12 of the proposed new law would mandate the government to create a risk reduction framework.  The framework would exempt pre-deployed AI research from the risk reduction measures.  Sounds reasonable.  CCIA wants to, again, more narrowly define transparency and disclosure to align with international standards, specifically the US based National Institute for Standards and Technology AI Risk Management Framework. 

With regards to Article 15, Data Openness, Sharing and Reuse, CCIA has plenty to say.  CCIA notes correctly, that government has vast quantities of data.  CCIA wants the government to ensure, through policies and/or rules, that data that can be made publicly available and optimized for AI training.  But wait.  Whose data is it?  Isn’t the data yours and mine? Why should the government turnover our data to private for-profit companies for building AI models.  Apparently CCIA believes it has a right to our data and wants to use the compulsion authority of government to get its hand on it.  I want to decide who gets my data, not the CCIA. 

Time to hit the road with a proverb from Taiwan: “where there is a mountain, there is a road; where there is water, there is a bridge.”

Until next time,

Yogi Nelson

blockchain association, Blockchains, Ireland, Yogi Nelson

WILL IRELAND HAVE THE LUCK OF THE IRISH WHEN IT COMES TO BLOCKCHAIN INNOVATION?

Yogi Nelson

Namaste Yogis.   Welcome to the Blockchain & AI Forum, where your technology questions are answered!   Here no question is too mundane.  As a bonus, a proverb is also included.  Today’s question comes from Patrick and he wants a quick overview of blockchain innovation in Ireland. 

Patrick, you came to the right place.  Recently I read an informative research report titled:  Ireland’s Blockchain, Crypto & Web3 Strategy: A Vision to Establish Ireland as a Global Web3 Hub.

https://www.blockchainireland.ie/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Blockchain-Ireland-Irelands-Blockchain-Crypto-and-Web3-Strategy-Paper.pdf  Below I highlight the most critical findings, but I’ll start with the authors, list the report chapters, and conclude with five recommendations. 

Report Authors

The report was prepared by researchers and academics on behalf of Blockchain Ireland.  Blockchain Ireland is essentially an industry association. According to Blockchain Ireland, the report offers a “… strategy and roadmap for creating a national and international blockchain hub in Ireland.” 

Table of Contents from the Report

  • Blockchain Ireland Overview:  In this chapter the report explains the who, what, why, and how of the organization. 
  • Blockchain Explainer:  Within this chapter, the authors go into detail regarding what is blockchain technology, how it works, why it’s important, etc.
  • Areas to Benefit from Blockchain, Digital Assets, and Crypto Innovations.  Here authors identify E-Governance & Digital Identity; Energy; Financial Services; Digital Assets; Healthcare and Supply Chain Management as the sectors where blockchain could have the greatest positive impact.
  • Government Regulations:  In this second to last chapter, the authors explain existing blockchain laws and government regulations in Ireland.
  • Recommendations and Road Map:  In this concluding chapter, the authors offer the government a series of recommendations and a “how to” narrative on implementing the ideas.

Report Highlights

After 25 years, Blockchain Ireland has grown to 1,400 members and 100 partnerships.  Blockchain Ireland has the ear of government officials, so let’s explore a few recommendations of the report starting with the Blockchain Hub concept: 

  1. 1. Develop a Global Blockchain Hub, a Multi-Institutional Centre for Excellence using the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs).  According to proponents, “… This Hub will bring together all the key components of the Blockchain ecosystem in an efficient and innovative way. The Hub, will contribute to drive the promotion of skills and talent in this area and position Ireland as a location of choice for Blockchain Technologies.”  What do you think about a blockchain association asking government to facilitate their industry?  Does it prove again that “free market” advocates want, need, and ask for government help when it’s convenient or did I miss something?
  2. 2. Create a Blockchain Skills Strategy and Roadmap. Blockchain Ireland is advocating for the government to adopt a blockchain strategy and of course, that it base the strategy on the report they produced and being reviewed here.  Makes sense. 
  3. 3. Create Public Trust in Blockchain.  It is unclear why Blockchain Ireland believes the government is capable of creating public trust in blockchain as opposed to other institutions but nevertheless, this is what they said.  The authors identified a number of ways to create public trust in blockchain technology, including:  more academic studies, university degrees in blockchain, conduct test pilot projects in fields of law and property, for example. 
  4. 4. Provide networking, mentoring, and financial support for emerging entrepreneurs and innovators to participate in national and EU-level innovation events, hubs and clusters.
  5. 5. Establish compliant sandbox and test-bed environments to iterate Web3 proof of-concepts, test implementations, and trial scaling propositions.

Time for a proverb from Ireland, where they say: “a cabin with plenty of food is better than a hungry castle.”

Until Next Time,

Yogi Nelson

Artificial Intelligence, Blockchains, Japan, Yogi Nelson

Understanding Japan’s Crypto Landscape: Key Concepts Explained

Yogi Nelson

Namaste Yogis!   Welcome to the Blockchain & AI Forum, where your technology questions are answered. As a bonus, a proverb is also included.  Today’s question, was submitted by Chisato and she wants to understand the evolution of crypto regulations in her native Japan.

Chisato, you came to the right place. Let’s examine the Japanese regulatory milieu of crypto by dividing the eras into three distinct periods, and ending by defining four key terms.  A big thanks and acknowledgment to So Saito and Kazuki Imanari of So & Sato Law Offices for the source of this information:

Click to access Crypto-Regulations-in-Japan-2024_240904-1.pdf

Early Era: 2014 – 2017   

Japan was an early leader in crypto but after the Mt. Gox exchange collapse in 2015, crypto fell from grace.  One year before the collapse of Mt Gox, the Japanese government decided to not regulate the industry and instead asked the industry to self-regulate.  It didn’t work. Although some retail users fled, crypto developers continued to build and true believers remained and by 2017 Japan was home to the number one crypto exchange.

Era of Stricter Regulations:  2017 – 2020

In America, stricter regulations always happen after a catastrophe; Japan is no different.    In 2018 there was a massive hacking, known as the Coincheck incident, and immediately thereafter Japanese financial regulators came charging.  Exchanges were forced to comply with new regulations, leading to a shake-out in the industry.

Web3 Makes the National Growth Strategy List:  2021 – Present

In 2021, the Japanese government approved a Web3 White Paper wherein it committed to Web3 as a national priority.  They quickly followed that action by being among the first to enact stablecoin regulations.   

Let’s now examine the Japanese definition of four key crypto concepts. 

Stablecoins

As noted above, Japan was a pioneer in crypto regulations and consequently was one of the first to establish stablecoin regulations.  In Japan, stablecoins pegged to fiat currency are defined as electronic payment instruments and require the issuer to obtain a license. Stablecoins classified as assets are subject to crypto regulations, while stablecoins classified as securities are subject to securities regulations.

Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs)

NFT regulations are generally clear.  The basic rule says, that if the NFT does not function as a payment instrument it is not considered a crypto asset.  Japanese regulators say “pure” NFTs have technical features that prohibit their use as payment instruments.  Japanese regulators also examine whether the quantity and price of NFTs are suitable for payment instruments.  Bottom line:  NFTs are not regulated in Japan; they are treated analogous to trading cards.  However, if an NFT is linked to a real-world asset, e.g. real estate, it could be considered a security. 

Crypto Lending

Crypto lending is not regulated in Japan.  What do I mean by crypto lending?  In crypto lending, a service provider borrows crypto assets from users for a certain period of time and pays a lending fee in exchange.  Why is this not regulated?  Because crypto assets are not considered money, therefore the Money Lending Business Act does not apply.  However, crypto lending maybe regulated in cases where the service is considered custody. 

Crypto Taxation

Death and taxes are inevitable everywhere, including Japan.  In Japan, tax authorities define crypto asset profits as miscellaneous income.  Profits generated by crypto asset transactions are taxed based on the personal tax bracket of the individual.  Income tax rates in Japan go from 5% to 45%!  Ouch. 

I end now with a proverb from Japan, where they say: “the mouth is the source of disaster”.

Until next time,

Yogi Nelson

Artificial Intelligence, blockchain association, Yogi Nelson

How to Master the Metaverse: A Guide to UON’s MSc Program

Yogi Nelson

Namaste Yogis.   Welcome to the Blockchain & AI Forum.  Here no question is too mundane.  As a bonus, a proverb is also included.  Today’s question, was submitted by Javier from Saint Petersburg, and he wants to how to master the metaverse?

Javier, you came to the right place.  I had to research your question. I didn’t believe it possible to earn a degree in Metaverse, much less, a masters degree, from an accredited university.  The good news is, it’s possible, the “bad” news is only one accredited university in the world offers the program, meaning it has a monopoly.  Let’s go over the facts together.

We begin with the obvious, what university and where is it?  The answer, the University of Nicosia (UON).  UON is located on the beautiful island nation of Cypress.  Cypress, for those unfamiliar, is located in the Mediterranean Sea.  About 2/3 of Cypress is Greek speaking and aligned with Greece.  In fact, UON has offices in Cypress and Greece.  The other part of Cypress is aligned with Turkey.  In 2013, UON was the first university to offer a masters degree in blockchain and crypto technology and in 2024 the only accredited university in the world to offer a masters in metaverse studies; hence, UON is recognized as a pioneer and a web three native institution. 

How does one get accepted in the program?  According to UON, only applicants with a B.A. from an accredited university need apply. No need to have a B.A. in computer science; any B.A. will suffice declares UON on its website.  B.A. in any subject makes sense given the Metaverse is a new discipline and when I describe the graduate course work, I think you will agree also.  The second requirement is English proficiency.  UON says applicants must score 550+ on the TOEFL.

After completing 3 fully loaded semesters that require 1.5 years, graduates earn the distinction of MSc in Metaverse.  Nice!  According to UON:

“The MSc in Metaverse is designed to provide participants a specialized program of study to become competent professionals in the field of Metaverse. Graduates will be able to develop computational design, programming skills and acquire hands-on cutting-edge experience, while cultivating analytical and creative thinking on the applications of Metaverse.”

Now, let’s take a look at the six mandatory general requirement classes for all students. 

  1. NFTs and the Metaverse
  2. Metaverse Technologies and Applications
  3. Open Web Applications and Digital Assets
  4. Extended Reality
  5. Virtual Worlds Architecture
  6. Social, Legal and Ethical Issues in the Metaverse

After completing the core classes, students must decide between two tracks:  metaverse management or metaverse development.  Let’s examine the options:

METAVERSE MANAGEGMENTMETAVERSE DEVELOPMENT
Metaverse EntrepreneurshipSmart Contract Programming for Metaverse Applications
Emerging Topics in the MetaverseVirtual and Augmented Reality Development
Virtual Economies in the MetaverseUser Experience and Interactive Design
Data Science in the MetaverseMetaverse Game Development
Metaverse Token Economics 

For the grand finale, students must select between writing a thesis or a semester long internship approved by UON. 

Seven of the 11 program professors are on loan from the School of Business, Department of Digital Innovation.  The other 4 hail from social science, architecture, etc.  Now that you know how to master the metaverse, would you enroll at UON and which track would you prefer?  I would pick metaverse development!

Time to go but first a proverb from Somalia, where they say: “delayed gratitude belongs to the patient, and unfinished business to the persistent.

Until next time,

Yogi Nelson

Artificial Intelligence, Blockchains

U.N. AI Regulations: Insights from the Human-AI Institute Founder

Yogi Nelson

Namaste Yogis. Welcome to the Blockchain & AI Forum, where your technology questions are answered! Here no question is too mundane. As a bonus, a proverb is also included. Today’s question was submitted by Mr. Bunch from UCLA, and he asked if the United Nations is united on artificial intelligence regulations?

Mr. Bunch, you came to the right place. Recently I traveled to Geneva, Switzerland and met with two U.N. employees. We discussed numerous topics, including your question. I’ll answer you by sharing what I learned.

In 2020, the U.N. decided to launch an AI initiative related to regulations of emerging AI technology. Markus Krebsz, Professor of Management, University of Stirling, was selected to lead the investigation. Professor Krebsz is also the Founder of the Human-AI Institute. Four years later, Professor Krebsz produced a report titled, U.N. Economic Commission for Europe Working Party 6. For the sake of brevity and sanity, I’ll refer to the report as WP6. Besides, WP6 sounds like a fun rock band, and good time! Lol. Let’s examine what’s inside WP6, commencing with the purpose, followed by findings and recommendations.
https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2024-07/ECE_CTCS_WP.6_2024_11_E.pdf

PURPOSE OF WP6
WP6 provides guidance to member states (the U.N. calls nations member states because they are all members of the UN) for an overall approach to regulations of products and/or services with embedded AI systems or digital technologies. The author reports the most appropriate use of WP6 include:
• Setting legitimate regulatory objectives
• Identifying and assessing risk
• Identifying relevant international standards
• Establishing mutually recognizable conformity assessment procedures
• Setting market surveillance and other enforcement mechanisms
• To promote convergence of national technical regulations among agencies currently in place or yet to be developed.

KEY FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Krebsz starts with an obvious but nevertheless important disclosure—zero risk is impossible. There is no way to avoid making an error when establishing AI regulations. Hence, constant evaluation of AI regulations is prudent.

Second, certain products/services may be intrinsically high risk to human society. Therefore, governments must assess risk and choose appropriate conformity assessment methods, say Krebsz. In high-risk situation, AI cannot be allowed to override human control and human decision, according to WP6. Krebsz cites the example of sophisticated diagnostic system, where even if the medical equipment could generate algorithmic decision-making, human decision making must be included.

The third recommendation concerns AI technology embedded within products. Krebsz notes consumers may not be fully aware certain products contain AI embedded technology. Thus, consumers might be surprised to discover the technology reacting in an unexpected manner. The solution is robust testing under various scenarios, say Krebsz. Krebsz applauds the National Institute of Standards and Technology AI Risk Management Framework for their work on this issue.

WP6 supplies a series of AI bullet point recommendations and policy guidance, including but not limited to:
• AI embedded systems should not impinge of human freedom nor cause bias.
• AI technology should not further widen the digital divide as outlined in previous U.N. resolution.
• No AI should cause mental health problems.
• AI should be designed to encourage trustworthiness. In other words, transparency under the hood of the technology.
• Scenario and simulation testing and evaluation of residual risk should be part of a national AI policy.

Apparently, Professor Krebsz’s report was a smashing success! The member states representatives adopted WP6 and all signed the corresponding resolution, also written by Krebsz!

Time to leave you with a proverb from Mali, where they say: “The bird that flies off the earth and lands on an anthill is still on the ground”.

Until next time,

Yogi Nelson