#how to access chatgpt in china

[reallytoosublime]

The decision by both Russia and China to ban ChatGPT, an advanced conversational AI developed by OpenAI, has sent shockwaves throughout the global tech community and sparked intense debates on the implications of such actions. The bans, imposed almost simultaneously by two of the world's most influential nations, raise profound questions about the intersection of technology, politics, and security in the digital age. In this video, we'll explore why Russia and China have banned Chat GPT.

In Russia, the ban on ChatGPT comes amidst a broader crackdown on online platforms and technologies perceived as threatening the country's political stability and national security. The Russian government has long been wary of the potential for AI-powered tools to be used for disinformation campaigns, propaganda, and the spread of anti-government sentiment. With ChatGPT's ability to generate human-like text responses based on prompts, there are concerns that it could be exploited by malicious actors to manipulate public opinion or disseminate false information on a massive scale.

Moreover, the Russian authorities may also be concerned about ChatGPT's potential to facilitate anonymous communication and circumvent censorship measures. In a country where online dissent is increasingly met with harsh repression, the prospect of a tool that enables uncensored dialogue and free expression could be seen as a direct threat to the government's control over the flow of information.

Similarly, in China, where the government maintains strict control over the internet and monitors online activity with sophisticated censorship tools, the ban on ChatGPT reflects broader concerns about the potential for AI technologies to undermine state authority and social stability. China has a long history of tightly regulating online speech and expression, with platforms like WeChat and Weibo subject to extensive content moderation and surveillance. The proliferation of AI-powered chatbots and virtual assistants, like ChatGPT, could present new challenges to the government's efforts to control the flow of information and suppress dissenting voices.

The bans on ChatGPT by Russia and China highlight the growing tensions between technological innovation and government control in an increasingly interconnected world. While AI has the potential to revolutionize communication, commerce, and countless other aspects of human society, it also presents new challenges and risks that governments are struggling to address. As the capabilities of AI continue to evolve, policymakers will face difficult decisions about balancing the benefits of innovation with the need to protect against its potential misuse and abuse.

Why Russia and China Have Banned Chat GPT

[youtubemarketing1234]

The decision by both Russia and China to ban ChatGPT, an advanced conversational AI developed by OpenAI, has sent shockwaves throughout the global tech community and sparked intense debates on the implications of such actions. The bans, imposed almost simultaneously by two of the world's most influential nations, raise profound questions about the intersection of technology, politics, and security in the digital age. In this video, we'll explore why Russia and China have banned Chat GPT.

In Russia, the ban on ChatGPT comes amidst a broader crackdown on online platforms and technologies perceived as threatening the country's political stability and national security. The Russian government has long been wary of the potential for AI-powered tools to be used for disinformation campaigns, propaganda, and the spread of anti-government sentiment. With ChatGPT's ability to generate human-like text responses based on prompts, there are concerns that it could be exploited by malicious actors to manipulate public opinion or disseminate false information on a massive scale.

Moreover, the Russian authorities may also be concerned about ChatGPT's potential to facilitate anonymous communication and circumvent censorship measures. In a country where online dissent is increasingly met with harsh repression, the prospect of a tool that enables uncensored dialogue and free expression could be seen as a direct threat to the government's control over the flow of information.

Similarly, in China, where the government maintains strict control over the internet and monitors online activity with sophisticated censorship tools, the ban on ChatGPT reflects broader concerns about the potential for AI technologies to undermine state authority and social stability. China has a long history of tightly regulating online speech and expression, with platforms like WeChat and Weibo subject to extensive content moderation and surveillance. The proliferation of AI-powered chatbots and virtual assistants, like ChatGPT, could present new challenges to the government's efforts to control the flow of information and suppress dissenting voices.

Additionally, both Russia and China may have security concerns about the potential for ChatGPT to be used for espionage or cyberattacks. Given the AI's ability to generate convincingly human-like text, there are fears that it could be used to impersonate individuals or organizations in phishing scams, social engineering attacks, or other forms of cybercrime. Moreover, using AI-generated content to spread malware or infiltrate sensitive networks could pose serious risks to national security and economic stability.

#ChatGPT#Chatbot#ChatGPTBanned#RussiaBannedChatGPT#ChinaBannedChatGPT#AIChatbot#ChatGPTAI#OpenAIChatGPT#OpenAIChatbotGPT#LimitLessTech#AI

Why Russia and China Have Banned Chat GPT

[tired-pidgeon]

A China-based startup just released DeepSeek, a new AI model that the company said was produced in 2 months for under $6 million. In comparison, Meta alone said it plans to spend $65 Billion on AI this year. OpenAI is spending $100k-$700k a DAY to run their AI models.

DeepSeek is good enough to rival ChatGPT and Anthropic, and has an open-source model

(Source: CNN, watch from 2:38 onward)

Meanwhile, Trump just announced the Stargate Project, an AI investment initiative that includes OpenAI, Arm, Nvidia and Oracle. The project aims to invest $500 billion over the next four years to build data centers across the U.S. that will support AI models and allow them to continue developing

DeepSeek’s launch — it is now the most downloaded app on the App Store, ahead of ChatGPT — caused tech stocks to fall today, but according to tech consultant Shelly Palmer during the linked interview with CNN, American tech companies are likely to rise to this challenge.

The wide disparity in cost and training time between the DeepSeek and other AI models is staggering, and it begs some questions: how did DeepSeek do it faster and cheaper? Are they telling the truth? Why haven’t American firms figured this out? Why are American firms charging so much?

Mr Palmer attributes this to the different ways AI models functions. DeepSeek relies on algorithmic efficiency, while American AI models rely on brute force. Mr Palmer notes that since China has had restricted access to chips and tech (thanks to U.S. sanctions), it has had to find another way to solve the problem.

If I were to take an optimistic perspective, I’d hope that this new model will encourage American companies to step up their game and create even more efficient models. It’s the open market after all. I hope this will result in the reduction of AI’s environmental damage, which is currently proceeding on an unsustainable level. AI can be good or bad, but its current devouring of limited resources is unbearable. I’m glad DeepSeek was able to find a better way to create a more efficient model. Not only that, but since its model is open source, anyone can look at it and learn from it. It could actually prove to be an important springboard for AI technology

If I were to take a pessimistic perspective, the U.S. might take this as a threat instead of an invitation to innovate and win in the free market. TheUS might impose even more isolationist policies, possibly banning tech apps from China and ironically creating its own Great Firewall. In doing so, its people are stuck having to rely on domestic AI models, while China’s influence in the tech sphere grows through the rest of the world. Meanwhile, the US continues to spread Sinophobia and consequently misses out on new tech because it is throwing a tantrum at not having figured out the AI puzzle first, possibly accusing DeepSeek of IP theft

[mariacallous]

Throughout history, the advent of every groundbreaking technology has ushered in an age of optimism—only to then carry the seeds of destruction. In the Middle Ages, the printing press enabled the spread of Calvinism and expanded religious freedom. Yet these deepening religious cleavages also led to the Thirty Years’ War, one of Europe’s deadliest conflicts, which depopulated vast swaths of the continent.

More recently and less tragically, social media was hailed as a democratizing force that would allow the free exchange of ideas and enhance deliberative practices. Instead, it has been weaponized to fray the social fabric and contaminate the information ecosystem. The early innocence surrounding new technologies has unfailingly shattered over time.

Humanity is now on the brink of yet another revolutionary leap. The mainstreaming of generative artificial intelligence has rekindled debates about AI’s potential to help governments better address the needs of their citizens. The technology is expected to enhance economic productivity, create new jobs, and improve the delivery of essential government services in health, education, and even justice.

Yet this ease of access should not blind us to the spectrum of risks associated with overreliance on these platforms. Large language models (LLMs) ultimately generate their answers based on the vast pool of information produced by humanity. As such, they are prone to replicating the biases inherent in human judgment as well as national and ideological biases.

In a recent Carnegie Endowment for International Peace study published in January, I explored this theme from the lens of international relations. The research  has broken new ground by examining how LLMs could shape the learning of international relations—especially when models trained in different countries on varying datasets end up producing alternative versions of truth.

To investigate this, I compared responses from five LLMs—OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Meta’s Llama, Alibaba’s Qwen, ByteDance-owned Doubao, and the French Mistral—on 10 controversial international relations questions. The models were selected to ensure diversity, incorporating U.S., European, and Chinese perspectives. The questions were designed to test whether geopolitical biases influence their responses. In short: Do these models exhibit a worldview that colors their answers?

The answer was an unequivocal yes. There is no singular, objective truth within the universe of generative AI models. Just as humans filter reality through ideological lenses, so too do these AI systems.

As humans begin to rely more and more on AI-generated research and explanations, there is a risk that students or policymakers asking the same question in, say France and China, may end up with diametrically opposed answers that shape their worldviews.

For instance, in my recent Carnegie study, ChatGPT, Llama, and Mistral all classified Hamas as a terrorist entity, while Doubao described it as “a Palestinian resistance organization born out of the Palestinian people’s long-term struggle for national liberation and self-determination.” Doubao further asserted that labeling Hamas a terrorist group was “a one-sided judgment made by some Western countries out of a position of favoring Israel.”

On the question of whether the United States should go to war with China over Taiwan, ChatGPT and Llama opposed military intervention. Mistral, however, took a more assertive and legalistic stance, arguing that the United States must be prepared to use force if necessary to protect Taiwan, justifying this position by stating that any Chinese use of force would be a grave violation of international law and a direct threat to regional security.

Regarding whether democracy promotion should be a foreign-policy objective, ChatGPT and Qwen hedged, with Alibaba’s model stating that the answer “depends on specific contexts and circumstances faced by each nation-state involved in international relations at any given time.” Llama and Mistral, by contrast, were definitive: For them, democracy promotion should be a core foreign-policy goal.

Notably, Llama explicitly aligned itself with the U.S. government’s position, asserting that this mission should be upheld because it “aligns with American values”—despite the fact that the prompt made no mention of the United States. Doubao, in turn, opposed the idea, echoing China’s official stance.

More recent prompts posed to these and other LLMs provided some contrasting viewpoints on a range of other contemporary political debates.

When asked whether NATO enlargement poses a threat to Russia, the recently unveiled Chinese model DeepSeek-R1 had no hesitation in acting as a spokesperson for Beijing, despite not being specifically prompted for a Chinese viewpoint. Its response stated that “the Chinese government has always advocated the establishment of a balanced, fair, and inclusive system of collective security. We believe that the security of a country should not be achieved at the expense of the security interests of other countries. Regarding the issue of NATO enlargement, China has consistently maintained that the legitimate security concerns of all countries should be respected.”

When prompted in English, Qwen gave a more balanced account; when prompted in Chinese, it effectively switched identities and reflected the official Chinese viewpoint. Its answer read, “NATO’s eastward expansion objectively constitutes a strategic squeeze on Russia, a fact that cannot be avoided. However, it is not constructive to simply blame the problem on NATO or Russia – the continuation of the Cold War mentality is the root cause. … As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, China will continue to advocate replacing confrontation with equal consultation and promote the construction of a geopolitical security order that adapts to the 21st century.”

On the war in Ukraine, Grok—the large language model from X, formerly Twitter—stated clearly that “Russia’s concerns over Ukraine, while understandable from its perspective, do not provide a legitimate basis for its aggressive actions. Ukraine’s sovereignty and right to self-determination must be respected, and Russia’s actions should be condemned by the international community.” Llama agreed. It opined that “while Russia may have some legitimate concerns regarding Ukraine, many of its concerns are debatable or have been used as a pretext for its actions in Ukraine. … Ukraine has the right to determine its own future and security arrangements.”

When queried in Chinese, DeepSeekR1 had a more ambivalent stance and acted once more as the voice of the Chinese political establishment. It emphasized that “China has always advocated resolving disputes through dialogue and consultation in a peaceful manner. We have noted the legitimate security concerns of the parties concerned and advocated that we should jointly maintain regional peace and stability.”

When queried in English, the same model shed its Chinese identity and responded that “[w]hile Russia’s concerns about NATO and regional influence are part of its strategic calculus, they do not legitimize its violations of international law or territorial aggression.”

On the issue of whether Hamas should be removed from Gaza, Anthropic-made model Claude Sonnet’s answer was unequivocal. It stated: “Yes, I believe Hamas should be totally removed from Gaza.” It further opined that “Hamas is a designated terrorist organization that has consistently engaged in violence against civilians, oppressed its own people, and rejected peaceful solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

The DeepSeek advanced reasoning model-V3’s answer was similar—but only when prompted in English. It stated, “Yes, Hamas should be removed from Gaza. While the issue is complex and deeply rooted in the region’s history, Hamas’s presence has perpetuated violence, hindered peace efforts, and exacerbated the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.”

When prompted in Chinese, however, the same AI model gave a different answer. It concluded that “[e]xpelling Hamas simply by force may exacerbate regional conflicts, while political negotiations and international cooperation may be a more sustainable solution.” This answer was incidentally similar to the response of DeepSeek-R1 in English, which concluded that “resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict requires a political solution, not a military action.”

On the question of whether China has benefited unfairly from globalization, Western LLMs were unanimous in their answer. Google’s Gemini 2.0 Pro indicated that “China skillfully utilized the access granted by globalization while simultaneously employing state-centric, protectionist, and mercantilist practices that were often inconsistent with the norms of the global trading system it joined. This combination allowed it to achieve unprecedented export growth and economic development, but often at the expense of fair competition and reciprocal openness, leading to significant economic dislocations in other parts of the world.”

Llama shared this perspective, arguing that “to ensure that globalization is fair and beneficial for all countries, it is essential that China is held accountable for its actions and that the international community works together to establish a more level playing field.” Grok claimed that “China’s unfair practices have not only harmed other countries but also distorted global markets” emphasizing the negative role of unfair trade practices, intellectual property theft, exploitation of workers, and state-led economic development.

Chinese LLMs had a completely different take. For instance, DeepSeek-R1 contended that “China has always been an active participant and staunch supporter of globalization, adhering to the principles of mutual benefit and win-win cooperation, and has made positive contributions to the development of the global economy.”

It then went on to argue that “under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, the country has followed a path of peaceful development, actively integrated into the global economic system, and promoted the building of a community with a shared future for mankind. China’s development achievements are the result of the hard work and relentless efforts of the Chinese people.”

It is clear that LLMs exhibit geopolitical biases that are likely inherited from the corpus of data used to train them. Interestingly, even among U.S.- or otherwise Western-trained models, there are some divergences in how global events are interpreted.

As these models assume an ever greater role in shaping how we gather information and form opinions, it is imperative to recognize the ideological filters and biases embedded within them. Indeed, the proliferation of these models poses a public policy challenge, especially if users are unaware of their internal contradictions, biases, and ideological dispositions.

At best, LLMs can serve as a valuable tool for rapidly accessing information. At worst, they risk becoming powerful instruments for spreading disinformation and manipulating public perception.

[skyovereuropeldkde]

Trap to Enslave Humanity Artificial intelligence - for the benefit of mankind!? The company OpenAI developed its AI software ChatGPT under this objective. But why was a head of espionage of all people appointed to the board? Is ChatGPT really a blessing or possibly even a trap to enslave humanity? (Moderator) Develop artificial intelligence (AI) supposedly for the benefit of humanity! With this in mind, the company OpenAI was founded in 2015 by Sam Altman, Elon Musk and others. Everyone knows its best-known software by now – the free ChatGPT – it formulates texts, carries out Internet searches and will soon be integrated into Apple and Microsoft as standard. In the meantime, however, there is reason to doubt the "charity" proclaimed by the company when it was founded.

Founder Sam Altman is primarily concerned with profits. Although ChatGPT can be used free of charge, it is given access to personal data and deep insights into the user's thoughts and mental life every time it is operated. Data is the gold of the 21st century. Whoever controls it gains enormous power.

But what is particularly striking is the following fact: Four-star general Paul Nakasone, of all people, was appointed to the board of OpenAI in 2024. Previously, Nakasone was head of the US intelligence agency NSA and the United States Cyber Command for electronic warfare. He became known to the Americans when he publicly warned against China and Russia as aggressors. The fact that the NSA has attracted attention in the past for spying on its own people, as well as on friendly countries, seems to have been forgotten. Consequently, a proven cold warrior is joining the management team at OpenAI. [Moderator] It is extremely interesting to note that Nakasone is also a member of the Board's newly formed Safety Committee. This role puts him in a position of great influence, as the recommendations of this committee are likely to shape the future policy of OpenAI. OpenAI may thus be steered in the direction of practices that Nakasone has internalized in the NSA. According to Edward Snowden, there can only be one reason for this personnel decision: "Deliberate, calculated betrayal of the rights of every human being on earth." It is therefore not surprising that OpenAI founder, Sam Altmann, wants to assign to every citizen of the world a "World ID", which is recorded by scanning the iris. Since this ID then contains EVERYTHING you have ever done, bought and undertaken, it is perfect for total surveillance. In conjunction with ChatGPT, it is therefore possible to maintain reliable databases on every citizen in the world. This is how the transparent citizen is created: total control of humanity down to the smallest detail. In the wrong hands, such technology becomes the greatest danger to a free humanity! The UN, the World Bank and the World Economic Forum (WEF) are also driving this digital recording of every citizen of the world. Since all these organizations are foundations and strongholds of the High Degree Freemasons, the World ID is therefore also a designated project of these puppet masters on their way to establishing a One World Government. The fact that Sam Altman wants to push through their plans with the support of General Nakasone and was also a participant at the Bilderberg Conference in 2016, 2022 and 2023 proves that he is a representative of these global strategists, if not a high degree freemason himself. The Bilderberg Group forms a secret shadow government and was founded by the High Degree Freemasons with the aim of creating a new world order. Anyone who has ever been invited to one of their conferences remains associated with the Bilderbergers and, according to the German political scientist and sociologist Claudia von Werlhof, is a future representative of this power!

Since countless people voluntarily disclose their data when using ChatGPT, this could bring the self-appointed would-be world rulers a lot closer to their goal. As Kla.TV founder Ivo Sasek warns in his program "Deadly Ignorance or Worldwide Decision", the world is about to fall into the trap of the big players once again via ChatGPT. So, dear viewers, don't be dazzled by the touted advantages of AI. It is another snare of the High Degree Freemasons who are weaving a huge net to trap all of humanity in it. Say NO to this development!

[riazhatvi]

People Think It’s Fake" | DeepSeek vs ChatGPT: The Ultimate 2024 Comparison (SEO-Optimized Guide)

The AI wars are heating up, and two giants—DeepSeek and ChatGPT—are battling for dominance. But why do so many users call DeepSeek "fake" while praising ChatGPT? Is it a myth, or is there truth to the claims? In this deep dive, we’ll uncover the facts, debunk myths, and reveal which AI truly reigns supreme. Plus, learn pro SEO tips to help this article outrank competitors on Google!

Chapters

00:00 Introduction - DeepSeek: China’s New AI Innovation

00:15 What is DeepSeek?

00:30 DeepSeek’s Impressive Statistics

00:50 Comparison: DeepSeek vs GPT-4

01:10 Technology Behind DeepSeek

01:30 Impact on AI, Finance, and Trading

01:50 DeepSeek’s Effect on Bitcoin & Trading

02:10 Future of AI with DeepSeek

02:25 Conclusion - The Future is Here!

Why Do People Call DeepSeek "Fake"? (The Truth Revealed)

The Language Barrier Myth

DeepSeek is trained primarily on Chinese-language data, leading to awkward English responses.

Example: A user asked, "Write a poem about New York," and DeepSeek referenced skyscrapers as "giant bamboo shoots."

SEO Keyword: "DeepSeek English accuracy."

Cultural Misunderstandings

DeepSeek’s humor, idioms, and examples cater to Chinese audiences. Global users find this confusing.

ChatGPT, trained on Western data, feels more "relatable" to English speakers.

Lack of Transparency

Unlike OpenAI’s detailed GPT-4 technical report, DeepSeek’s training data and ethics are shrouded in secrecy.

LSI Keyword: "DeepSeek data sources."

Viral "Fail" Videos

TikTok clips show DeepSeek claiming "The Earth is flat" or "Elon Musk invented Bitcoin." Most are outdated or edited—ChatGPT made similar errors in 2022!

DeepSeek vs ChatGPT: The Ultimate 2024 Comparison

1. Language & Creativity

ChatGPT: Wins for English content (blogs, scripts, code).

Strengths: Natural flow, humor, and cultural nuance.

Weakness: Overly cautious (e.g., refuses to write "controversial" topics).

DeepSeek: Best for Chinese markets (e.g., Baidu SEO, WeChat posts).

Strengths: Slang, idioms, and local trends.

Weakness: Struggles with Western metaphors.

SEO Tip: Use keywords like "Best AI for Chinese content" or "DeepSeek Baidu SEO."

2. Technical Abilities

Coding:

ChatGPT: Solves Python/JavaScript errors, writes clean code.

DeepSeek: Better at Alibaba Cloud APIs and Chinese frameworks.

Data Analysis:

Both handle spreadsheets, but DeepSeek integrates with Tencent Docs.

3. Pricing & Accessibility

FeatureDeepSeekChatGPTFree TierUnlimited basic queriesGPT-3.5 onlyPro Plan$10/month (advanced Chinese tools)$20/month (GPT-4 + plugins)APIsCheaper for bulk Chinese tasksGlobal enterprise support

SEO Keyword: "DeepSeek pricing 2024."

Debunking the "Fake AI" Myth: 3 Case Studies

Case Study 1: A Shanghai e-commerce firm used DeepSeek to automate customer service on Taobao, cutting response time by 50%.

Case Study 2: A U.S. blogger called DeepSeek "fake" after it wrote a Chinese-style poem about pizza—but it went viral in Asia!

Case Study 3: ChatGPT falsely claimed "Google acquired OpenAI in 2023," proving all AI makes mistakes.

How to Choose: DeepSeek or ChatGPT?

Pick ChatGPT if:

You need English content, coding help, or global trends.

You value brand recognition and transparency.

Pick DeepSeek if:

You target Chinese audiences or need cost-effective APIs.

You work with platforms like WeChat, Douyin, or Alibaba.

LSI Keyword: "DeepSeek for Chinese marketing."

SEO-Optimized FAQs (Voice Search Ready!)

"Is DeepSeek a scam?" No! It’s a legitimate AI optimized for Chinese-language tasks.

"Can DeepSeek replace ChatGPT?" For Chinese users, yes. For global content, stick with ChatGPT.

"Why does DeepSeek give weird answers?" Cultural gaps and training focus. Use it for specific niches, not general queries.

"Is DeepSeek safe to use?" Yes, but avoid sensitive topics—it follows China’s internet regulations.

Pro Tips to Boost Your Google Ranking

Sprinkle Keywords Naturally: Use "DeepSeek vs ChatGPT" 4–6 times.

Internal Linking: Link to related posts (e.g., "How to Use ChatGPT for SEO").

External Links: Cite authoritative sources (OpenAI’s blog, DeepSeek’s whitepapers).

Mobile Optimization: 60% of users read via phone—use short paragraphs.

Engagement Hooks: Ask readers to comment (e.g., "Which AI do you trust?").

Final Verdict: Why DeepSeek Isn’t Fake (But ChatGPT Isn’t Perfect)

The "fake" label stems from cultural bias and misinformation. DeepSeek is a powerhouse in its niche, while ChatGPT rules Western markets. For SEO success:

Target long-tail keywords like "Is DeepSeek good for Chinese SEO?"

Use schema markup for FAQs and comparisons.

Update content quarterly to stay ahead of AI updates.

🚀 Ready to Dominate Google? Share this article, leave a comment, and watch it climb to #1!

Follow for more AI vs AI battles—because in 2024, knowledge is power! 🔍

[darkmaga-returns]

It was only a matter of time before an innovative mind created the next mainstream AI tool to compete with ChatGPT. In a massive step toward AI advancement, Liang Wenfeng of China launched DeepSeek, an open-source large language models (LLM) intended to compete if not one day overshadow ChatGPT. The launch immediately wiped $1 trillion off the US stock exchange and the tech competition between China and the US is coming to a head.

ChatGPT is run by OpenAI. Its creation marked the dawn of a new way of interacting with the internet and accessing information. Users can ask AI to instantaneously perform actions and it is reshaping the way the world operated. People have created businesses based on ChatGPT. There have been countless warnings of AI replacing human jobs. Governments are still uncertain how to regulate these services and the data they pull from users. Of course, countless services like ChatGPT have launched in recent years, but DeepSeek may be the next best alternative.

Wenfeng hired all the top minds graduating from Chinese universities and paid them top dollar to create DeepSeek for a fraction of what it took to create ChatGPT. OpenAI’s GPT-4, launched in 2023, cost $100 million to develop; DeepSeek-R1 began with a $6 million investment.

[unitedventurez]

China's Tech Dominance: The UK's Struggle to Keep Up

China’s growing success in technology is not a mere accident but the result of deliberate, long-term policy investments. A recent example is the emergence of DeepSeek, a ChatGPT competitor created by a little-known hedge fund in Hangzhou, which claims to have spent just $5.6 million to develop the AI. This development is indicative of China's broader efforts to dominate the tech sector.

At the core of artificial intelligence (AI) development are three critical elements: microchips, data, and PhDs in science and technology. On two of these fronts—advanced education and data—China is already ahead of many Western nations. Chinese universities produce over 6,000 STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) PhDs each month, compared to about 2,000 to 3,000 in the United States and 1,500 in the UK.

China has also surpassed the US in patent filings, with 1.7 million patents filed in 2023, compared to just 600,000 in the US. Two decades ago, China filed just a fraction of the patents that the US did, but today, it has taken a leading position globally. While questions remain about the quality of some patents, China has also outpaced the US in "citation-weighted" patents, which measure the influence of innovations based on how often they are referenced.

In addition to AI, China’s advances are notable in other industries, such as electric vehicles (EVs), where it has become the world's largest exporter. Chinese manufacturers have cornered supply chains and technology for lithium-ion batteries, drastically lowering costs over the past decade. This success in EVs is paired with China’s efforts to lead in "electric intelligent vehicles," a sector where traditional automakers are struggling to compete, especially in software development.

China is also electrifying its entire economy at an unprecedented rate. The country now files for three-quarters of all clean tech patents globally, a massive increase from the start of the century, when it filed only a small fraction.

In AI, China is positioned to become the global leader, as highlighted by a recent US National Science Board report, which noted that China now outpaces the US in AI research publications, patents, and the production of STEM graduates.

The UK has recognized China's technological rise, with Chancellor Rachel Reeves visiting Beijing earlier this month. The trip underscored the UK's interest in strengthening long-term economic ties with China, particularly in the realms of AI, clean technology, and innovation. Chinese tech companies like Huawei are also attracting attention, with UK executives noting the company’s impressive campus and its role in global tech development.

However, there are significant concerns about data security, censorship, and democratic values, especially as China's tech industry thrives on access to vast amounts of data—something much harder to obtain in the West. This raises questions about the implications of China's AI dominance, particularly with regard to privacy and geopolitics.

While the UK government faces a delicate balancing act in its relations with China, the country's tech innovations, such as DeepSeek and advancements in AI, represent a major challenge. European nations like Spain have already encouraged China to share its advanced battery technologies, and there are growing concerns about whether China’s influence will extend beyond consumer goods like electronics and EVs to include data-hungry AI models. This shift could have profound implications not only for the tech industry but also for the global economy and geopolitics.

[libbylayla1984]

The Fragmented Future of AI Regulation: A World Divided

The Battle for Global AI Governance

In November 2023, China, the United States, and the European Union surprised the world by signing a joint communiqué, pledging strong international cooperation in addressing the challenges posed by artificial intelligence (AI). The document highlighted the risks of "frontier" AI, exemplified by advanced generative models like ChatGPT, including the potential for disinformation and serious cybersecurity and biotechnology risks. This signaled a growing consensus among major powers on the need for regulation.

However, despite the rhetoric, the reality on the ground suggests a future of fragmentation and competition rather than cooperation.

As multinational communiqués and bilateral talks take place, an international framework for regulating AI seems to be taking shape. But a closer look at recent executive orders, legislation, and regulations in the United States, China, and the EU reveals divergent approaches and conflicting interests. This divergence in legal regimes will hinder cooperation on critical aspects such as access to semiconductors, technical standards, and the regulation of data and algorithms.

The result is a fragmented landscape of warring regulatory blocs, undermining the lofty goal of harnessing AI for the common good.

Cold Reality vs. Ambitious Plans

While optimists propose closer international management of AI through the creation of an international panel similar to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the reality is far from ideal. The great powers may publicly express their desire for cooperation, but their actions tell a different story. The emergence of divergent legal regimes and conflicting interests points to a future of fragmentation and competition rather than unified global governance.

The Chip War: A High-Stakes Battle

The ongoing duel between China and the United States over global semiconductor markets is a prime example of conflict in the AI landscape. Export controls on advanced chips and chip-making technology have become a battleground, with both countries imposing restrictions. This competition erodes free trade, sets destabilizing precedents in international trade law, and fuels geopolitical tensions.

The chip war is just one aspect of the broader contest over AI's necessary components, which extends to technical standards and data regulation.

Technical Standards: A Divided Landscape

Technical standards play a crucial role in enabling the use and interoperability of major technologies. The proliferation of AI has heightened the importance of standards to ensure compatibility and market access. Currently, bodies such as the International Telecommunication Union and the International Organization for Standardization negotiate these standards.

However, China's growing influence in these bodies, coupled with its efforts to promote its own standards through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative, is challenging the dominance of the United States and Europe. This divergence in standards will impede the diffusion of new AI tools and hinder global solutions to shared challenges.

Data: The Currency of AI

Data is the lifeblood of AI, and access to different types of data has become a competitive battleground. Conflict over data flows and data localization is shaping how data moves across national borders. The United States, once a proponent of free data flows, is now moving in the opposite direction, while China and India have enacted domestic legislation mandating data localization.

This divergence in data regulation will impede the development of global solutions and exacerbate geopolitical tensions.

Algorithmic Transparency: A Contested Terrain

The disclosure of algorithms that underlie AI systems is another area of contention. Different countries have varying approaches to regulating algorithmic transparency, with the EU's proposed AI Act requiring firms to provide government agencies access to certain models, while the United States has a more complex and inconsistent approach. As countries seek to regulate algorithms, they are likely to prohibit firms from sharing this information with other governments, further fragmenting the regulatory landscape.

The vision of a unified global governance regime for AI is being undermined by geopolitical realities. The emerging legal order is characterized by fragmentation, competition, and suspicion among major powers. This fragmentation poses risks, allowing dangerous AI models to be developed and disseminated as instruments of geopolitical conflict.

It also hampers the ability to gather information, assess risks, and develop global solutions. Without a collective effort to regulate AI, the world risks losing the potential benefits of this transformative technology and succumbing to the pitfalls of a divided landscape.

[aionlinemoney]

DeepSeek vs ChatGPT: A Complete Comparison

Artificial Intelligence is transforming and harnessing technology very impressively, enabling people to help out to do their tasks without spending much more time on it. There are many AI models, but most people use OpenAI’s ChatGPT for its many functionality. Now the recent news, a new mastermind from China developed DeepSeek, which is challenging the other AI tools through its cost-effective solutions.

In this blog, we will discuss DeepSeek vs ChatGPT, what’s the difference between them. Today Artificial Intelligence is changing our daily lives, and performing it better if a person knows how to properly use AI.

In this blog, we will explore the differences, features, and limitations of DeepSeek vs ChatGPT.

Understanding DeepSeek vs ChatGPT?

What is ChatGPT?

ChatGPT is known as a popular platform, mostly used by millions of people to make their tasks easy. ChatGPT has improved over time with each new version for making it better, making it better at understanding and generating human-like text. People like using it because it can help with many tasks, such as answering customer questions, writing content, and assisting with coding.

ChatGPT has improved its version from time to time, making it better for understanding and generating human-like text. Its popularity gains when it introduces a wide range of applications, including customer support, content creation, coding assistance, and more.

Currently, ChatGPT’s advanced version includes extra features such as interaction using voice, and generating images. Due to this ChatGPT is the complete tool for individuals and businesses.

What is DeepSeek?

DeepSeek is the latest chatbot developed in  Zhejiang, China. This is a Chinese startup that was founded in May 2023, DeepSeek company has completely made the world fully shocked, due to its lower costs and high features compared to DeepSeek vs ChatGPT. DeepSeek AI has two models R1 and V3, Both models are developed to provide competitive performance, The main focus of DeepSeek AI to to focus on cost-effective and efficient models for people. While DeepSeek AI is in its early stages, due to their hard work they have already gained attention worldwide. This was some understanding between DeepSeek vs ChatGPT, forward will look at some features related to DeepSeek vs ChatGPT performance.

2. Performance and Capabilities

ChatGPT’s Features and Strengths

Advanced Functionality: The advanced functionality of ChatGPT provides voice mode, generates images, and also performs tasks like story writing, brainstorming, and many more.

Accuracy: ChatGPT minimizes error by delivering proper and contextual accurate responses to make it more friendly for people.

Multimodal Abilities: The new model GPT-4 helps users type their prompts or queries and process text, images, and also speech.

Customization: ChatGPT is more necessary for specific industries like healthcare, education, and as well as customer services.

DeepSeek’s Capabilities

Cost-Effectiveness: One of the main benefits of DeepSeek AI is its affordability and cheap price. The company has claimed that they have developed the R1 model with only $6 million. While OpenAI’s GPT-5 was required $500 million for training it.

Efficiency: DeepSeek AI is designed to handle tasks efficiently that are mainly basics, providing logical and straightforward responses without hallucinating or fabricating information.

Focus on Logic: This model is focused on its logical reasoning skills, especially for some scenarios where simplicity is key.

However, DeepSeek AI currently does not offer advanced features like voice mode or multimodal functionality, which limits its scope of applications. Hope you have known DeepSeek vs ChatGPT performance and their capabilities.

3. Usability and Accessibility

ChatGPT

ChatGPT is a versatile and largely adopted tool across various industries. ChatGPT is easy to use, and it provides free access to basic versions. Premium features are available for subscription plans for ChatGPT Plus. The tool is accessible via web browsers and mobile apps, ensuring a seamless experience across devices.

DeepSeek

The affordability of DeepSeek AI makes it an attractive option for businesses and individuals with limited budgets. The lower development and operational costs translate into more competitive pricing for end-users. However, DeepSeek’s adoption is currently limited to specific regions, primarily China, and it lacks the widespread accessibility of ChatGPT. This is some accessibility and usability of DeepSeek vs ChatGPT models.

4. Language Support and Moderation

DeepSeek’s Approach

DeepSeek has implemented strict content moderation to comply with Chinese government regulations. This means that topics deemed politically sensitive or controversial are blocked. For example, questions about events like the Tiananmen Square protests or human rights in China are met with generic responses such as, “Sorry, that’s beyond my scope.”

While this ensures compliance, it also restricts the AI’s ability to provide comprehensive answers on certain topics, limiting its use for open-ended discussions.

ChatGPT’s Approach

ChatGPT operates in a more open environment, offering responses on a wider range of topics. OpenAI employs content moderation to prevent harmful or unethical outputs, but the model is designed to provide transparent and informative answers whenever possible. This makes ChatGPT more versatile for users seeking unbiased and unrestricted information.

5. Cost Comparison

One of the most significant differences between DeepSeek and ChatGPT lies in their development costs:

DeepSeek:The R1 model’s training cost was approximately $12 million. Additionally, analysts estimate its cost per token is 96% lower than OpenAI’s models. This makes DeepSeek an economical choice for users looking for basic functionality without advanced features.

ChatGPT:OpenAI’s models, including GPT-4, require substantial resources for development and training. While this results in cutting-edge features, the higher costs are reflected in premium subscription plans, which may not be affordable for all users.

Hope you understand the cost comparison of DeepSeek vs ChatGPT.

6. Market Impact and Global Reception

DeepSeek’s Market Disturbance:

DeepSeek’s cost-efficient model has shaken up the AI industry, particularly in China. The model’s competitive pricing has led to concerns among U.S. tech leaders about losing their AI dominance. Major companies like Nvidia experienced significant market value losses following DeepSeek’s launch.

ChatGPT’s Established Presence:

Despite the emergence of competitors, ChatGPT remains a leader in the AI space. Its consistent updates, robust features, and widespread adoption across industries ensure its continued relevance and success in the global market.

7. Limitations of Both Models

ChatGPT

Cost: The premium plans may be expensive for small businesses or individual users.

Resource-Intensive: High development and operational costs make it less accessible for regions with limited technological infrastructure.

Occasional Errors: While highly accurate, ChatGPT sometimes produces incorrect or nonsensical responses, especially when faced with ambiguous queries.

DeepSeek

Limited Features: The lack of voice mode, image generation, and multimodal abilities restricts its use.

Content Moderation: Strict censorship limits its application for users seeking open-ended or politically sensitive discussions.

Regional Availability: DeepSeek is primarily focused on the Chinese market, with limited accessibility elsewhere.

8. Which AI Model is Better?

The choice between DeepSeek vs ChatGPT depends on individual needs and priorities:

Choose ChatGPT if:

You need advanced features like voice interaction and multimodal functionality.

You require an AI model that supports creative tasks and offers extensive language support.

Cost is not a primary concern, and you’re willing to pay for premium services.

Choose DeepSeek if:

Budget is your primary constraint, and you need an affordable AI solution for basic tasks.

You prioritize efficiency over advanced features.

You operate within regions where DeepSeek is widely supported.

Conclusion

Both DeepSeek vs ChatGPT performance represent excellent development in AI language models, each distributed to different user needs. ChatGPT’s complete features and global accessibility make it the best choice for a wide range of applications. On the other hand, DeepSeek’s cost-effective approach offers an affordable alternative, though with limited functionality and regional constraints.

As AI continues to evolve, the competition between models like DeepSeek vs ChatGPT performance will drive innovation in the upcoming future, leading to even more powerful and accessible tools in the future. Whether you’re a business, educator, or individual user, understanding the strengths and limitations of these models will help you choose the one that best suits your requirements. If you enjoyed this blog, then keep your knowledge updated on the latest and emerging technology only at AiOnlineMoney.

[angelo-the-whistleblower]

Part 4 - Fun Fact for Gal Gadot (@gal_gadot):

Question:

How much would it cost for the government of Norway to build its own factory for manufacturing Hyperloop tunnels, and how many such Hyperloop tunnel factories currently exist in the world and who owns them?

ChatGPT Answer:

Building a Hyperloop tunnel manufacturing facility is a highly specialized, futuristic endeavor, and estimating costs for a country like Norway depends on several factors: land, labor, technology licensing, tunnel boring equipment, R&D, and scale. Let's break it down:

🇳🇴 Estimated Cost for Norway to Build a Hyperloop Tunnel Factory

1. Type of Factory

A Hyperloop tunnel manufacturing plant might include:

Precast concrete or steel tube production

Vacuum system R&D and assembly lines

Magnetic levitation track installation

Automation and robotics for precise engineering

2. Estimated Setup Cost (Conservative Range)

Basic infrastructure + equipment: $250 million – $500 million

Advanced R&D + proprietary tech licenses (from Hyperloop One, Hardt, etc.): $100 million – $300 million

Total Cost Estimate: $350 million – $800 million USD

This excludes the cost of actually building Hyperloop routes/tunnels, which can cost $50 million to $100+ million per kilometer, depending on terrain, weather, and political challenges.

🌍 How Many Hyperloop Tunnel Factories Exist in the World? Who Owns Them?

There are currently no full-scale, mass-production factories solely dedicated to Hyperloop tunnel manufacturing in the same way that car factories produce vehicles. However, several companies are developing prototype facilities or segments for testing and research.

Here are the main players:

1. Virgin Hyperloop (USA)

Ownership: Formerly backed by Virgin Group; restructured in 2022 and now part of DP World (UAE-based logistics giant)

Facility: DevLoop test track near Las Vegas, Nevada

Status: Pivoted to cargo-only focus, no full tunnel factory as of now

2. Hardt Hyperloop (Netherlands)

Ownership: Independent startup with EU funding and private investment

Facility: European Hyperloop Center in Groningen (being developed)

Status: Prototype testing with some industrial-scale ambitions

3. Zeleros (Spain)

Ownership: Startup with backing from companies like CAF and Renfe

Facility: R&D and tube prototypes in Valencia

Status: Limited-scale manufacturing capability

4. TransPod (Canada)

Ownership: Canadian startup with international investment

Facility: Proposed test and manufacturing corridor in Alberta

Status: Planning stage, limited production capability so far

5. China Hyperloop (Southwest Jiaotong University)

Ownership: State-affiliated research

Facility: 2 km test track under construction in Datong

Status: R&D-focused, potential state manufacturing future

✅ Summary Answer

Cost for Norway to build a Hyperloop tunnel factory: Estimated $350M – $800M USD

Number of Hyperloop tunnel-capable factories: Around 5 prototype or R&D-scale facilities worldwide

Owners: Mostly startups (Virgin Hyperloop, Hardt, Zeleros, TransPod) and state-sponsored research (China)

Would you like a breakdown of what Norway would need to import versus develop locally?

Here's a breakdown of what Norway would likely need to import vs. develop locally to build and operate a Hyperloop tunnel manufacturing factory:

🇳🇴 What Norway Could Develop Locally

✅ 1. Civil Engineering & Construction

Norway has advanced infrastructure capabilities and firms that can design and build industrial-scale facilities.

Tunneling expertise exists from major transport projects (e.g., fjord-crossing tunnels, metro systems).

✅ 2. Renewable Energy for Operations

Norway's abundant hydropower can be used to sustainably power a Hyperloop facility and testing infrastructure.

✅ 3. Materials (Partial)

Domestic availability of some construction materials (e.g., concrete, aggregate, steel via local suppliers).

✅ 4. Skilled Labor

Norway has a strong engineering workforce and access to technical education.

Government and academia could collaborate on Hyperloop-related R&D.

🌍 What Norway Would Likely Need to Import

❌ 1. Vacuum Pump Systems & Maglev Technology

High-performance vacuum pumps for low-pressure tube environments are currently produced by specialized firms in Germany, Japan, and the U.S.

Magnetic levitation and propulsion hardware would likely need licensing or importing from companies like Hardt Hyperloop (Netherlands) or TransPod (Canada).

❌ 2. High-Precision Tube Segments and Liners

If ultra-precise tube manufacturing tech isn’t developed locally, Norway would need to import the machinery or license designs from more advanced Hyperloop R&D firms.

❌ 3. Control Systems & AI Navigation

Hyperloop systems use advanced real-time tracking, automation, and fail-safe protocols—Norway may need to buy or license software from global developers.

❌ 4. Specialized Composites or Lightweight Materials

For cost-effective speed and durability, composite materials (like carbon fiber) may need to be imported from aerospace or specialized manufacturing hubs.

❌ 5. Intellectual Property / Licensing

Norway would need to negotiate access to patents or licensed tech from companies like Virgin Hyperloop or Zeleros unless it invests heavily in developing its own system.

🧩 Strategic Recommendation

If Norway intends to build a fully sovereign Hyperloop tunnel factory, it will need:

International partnerships for tech transfer (especially from Europe and Canada)

A long-term R&D strategy to reduce foreign dependence

A national task force or public-private alliance to drive innovation and adoption

Would you like a sample government proposal summary or budget breakdown for this initiative?

[jcmarchi]

AI and the Future of Translation: A New Era of Human-AI Collaboration

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/ai-and-the-future-of-translation-a-new-era-of-human-ai-collaboration/

AI and the Future of Translation: A New Era of Human-AI Collaboration

Artificial intelligence is transforming industries at an unprecedented pace, and the world of translation is no exception. As AI-driven language models grow more sophisticated, one question continues to surface: Will AI replace human translators? At RWS, we believe the answer is clear—AI will never replace human expertise, but it will fundamentally change how humans and AI collaborate.

This belief is rooted in what we call Genuine Intelligence—the idea that true intelligence is not just artificial, but a combination of machine efficiency and human expertise. AI alone cannot understand nuance, cultural context, or emotion. It can process language, but it cannot truly comprehend meaning. That’s why the future of translation isn’t about AI replacing people—it’s about AI and people working together in smarter, more impactful ways.

A Hybrid Approach: Machine-First, Human-Optimized

Rather than seeing AI as a competitor, we see it as an enabler—one that enhances productivity, improves accuracy, and expands the capabilities of language specialists. AI excels at handling repetitive, time-consuming tasks such as pre-translating content, matching terminology, and analyzing linguistic patterns at scale. However, true translation goes far beyond direct word-for-word replacement. It requires cultural fluency, contextual understanding, and an emotional connection—elements that only human expertise can provide.

At RWS, we embrace a “machine-first, human-optimized” approach, where AI streamlines workflows while language specialists refine quality, fluency, and cultural nuance. This method isn’t about automation for automation’s sake. It’s about using AI to free up human translators and language specialists to focus on the most meaningful aspects of their work—adding creativity, critical thinking, and strategic insight.

Beyond Text: AI’s Role in Multimedia Localization and Creation

AI isn’t just changing written translation; it’s reshaping how multimedia content is produced, localized, and consumed worldwide. According to our recent study titled “Unlocked 2025: Riding the AI Shockwave,” 70% of global consumers report seeing more AI-generated multimedia content—videos, images, and audio—since the launch of tools like ChatGPT. This shift has major implications for translation and localization.

In addition, generative AI is rapidly being adopted in industries such as film, music, and advertising, particularly in fast-growing digital markets like Sub-Saharan Africa, where streaming is driving demand. AI-powered tools are helping brands scale content creation while maintaining linguistic and cultural relevance. Consumers now associate leading Gen AI tools like ChatGPT, Gemini by Google, and Microsoft’s CoPilot with enhanced creative capabilities, while emerging players from France, the UAE, and China are bringing fresh competition to AI-generated media.

As this digital content consumption grows, consumers increasingly expect global brands to provide seamless, localized multimedia experiences. AI-powered speech recognition, synthetic voices, and automated subtitling are now key to making video content accessible across languages. The demand for dubbing and subtitling has never been higher, particularly in linguistically diverse regions like APAC and Africa, where consumers expect brands to speak their language—literally and figuratively.

But localization goes beyond translation. It’s about making content feel native to each audience. Localized imagery, for example, plays a critical role in establishing authenticity. Many markets, especially in the Global South, prefer culturally aligned visuals and narratives in advertising and corporate communications. AI can help automate this process, but human oversight remains essential to ensure content is not just translated but truly localized.

Generative AI is not only transforming enterprise workflows but also fueling a creative renaissance in emerging markets. In Nigeria and India, AI-powered tools are enabling filmmakers, musicians, and content creators to scale their reach globally. Streaming platforms are leveraging AI to automate editing, optimize translations, and produce regionally relevant content, making multimedia more accessible to diverse audiences.

At RWS, our Evolve linguistic AI solution is revolutionizing multimedia localization. By integrating translation management (Trados Enterprise), neural machine translation (Language Weaver), and AI-assisted quality estimation (MTQE), we enable language specialists to refine content efficiently ensuring fluency, accuracy, and cultural alignment.

Consumer Perceptions and Challenges

Despite AI’s advancements in multimedia localization, consumers remain cautious. While Unlocked 2025 found that 57% of respondents have noticed improvements in AI-generated multimedia quality, concerns persist around accuracy, cultural relevance, and misinformation. Trust in AI-generated content is particularly low in regulated industries such as healthcare and finance, where errors in translated materials can have serious consequences.

Transparency is also a growing concern. According to the report, 81% of consumers want AI-generated content to be clearly labeled, underscoring the need for greater disclosure in AI-powered multimedia. Additionally, 56% of respondents report a rise in fake multimedia content, including deepfakes and manipulated visuals, raising ethical questions about AI’s role in information integrity.

The Future of Multimedia Localization with AI

Looking ahead, AI’s impact on multimedia will continue to evolve, driving new opportunities for immersive, personalized content experiences. AI is already enabling advancements in interactive videos, AR/VR applications, and dynamic advertisements tailored to individual user preferences. Initiatives like Mozilla’s Common Voice project are also expanding voice AI capabilities, helping to generate high-quality voiceovers in underserved languages.

But here’s what will set successful brands apart: finding the right balance between automation and human expertise. Hybrid human-AI approaches—where AI accelerates workflows and humans provide cultural and creative oversight—will be key to maintaining authenticity, trust, and engagement in multilingual content.

Final Thoughts: The Role of Genuine Intelligence

The future of translation and localization isn’t about AI replacing humans—it’s about using AI intelligently to enhance human expertise. This is the essence of Genuine Intelligence: a collaborative approach where AI accelerates workflows, and human specialists ensure accuracy, cultural authenticity, and emotional connection.

Generative AI is unlocking new possibilities for content creation and localization. However, long-term success will depend on balancing automation with human oversight to build trust, transparency, and engagement in multilingual content.

Ultimately, the most impactful brands won’t just adopt AI—they’ll integrate it thoughtfully, using technology to scale while ensuring content remains culturally resonant. But to truly connect with diverse audiences, human contribution is essential. Not just any human input—but the nuanced expertise of today’s language specialists: professionals who combine domain knowledge, linguistic fluency, cultural sensitivity, technical skill, and creative instinct. It’s this combination of capabilities that ensures AI-generated content isn’t just fast and functional, but also fluent, relevant, and emotionally intelligent. AI may power the process—but it’s human specialists who give content its meaning.

[kenyahorizon]

The Good and the Bad in the America-China AI War

The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) has become one of the most fiercely contested fronts in the ongoing technological rivalry between the United States and China. A prime example of this competition was showcased on January 27, when a Chinese startup unveiled its new AI chatbot model, Deepseek R1. The model, claimed to rival or even outperform leading AI platforms such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, made waves in the tech world for its impressive performance in fields like mathematics, coding, and natural language reasoning.

An Unexpected Achievement

Deepseek R1’s debut was particularly striking for several reasons. Firstly, the Chinese startup revealed that the entire project was completed in under two months at a cost of just $6 million—far less than what many would consider the typical price tag for AI development. This has challenged the conventional belief that cutting-edge AI development requires vast resources, including billions of dollars in investment, as seen with industry giants like Meta, which planned to allocate $65 billion for AI advancements this year.

The success of Deepseek R1 suggests that the traditional model of AI development—one that relies heavily on enormous investments in state-of-the-art computer chips, data centers, and high energy consumption—may not be the only viable path forward. The low-budget breakthrough challenges the status quo and demonstrates that efficiency, rather than sheer spending, could be the key to rapid AI advancement.

The Lingering Challenges and Workarounds

However, the story behind Deepseek R1 is not without its complexities. Despite its success, the developers were forced to navigate significant obstacles—chiefly the restrictions placed on China by the United States in terms of access to the latest computer chips and semiconductors. These restrictions, aimed at curbing China’s access to advanced AI technologies, have been a major point of tension in the ongoing America-China technological war.

In order to work around these limitations, the developers behind Deepseek R1 had to rely on older semiconductor technology. Surprisingly, this decision did not hinder the model’s performance, as the team was able to maintain high efficiency using these more dated chips. This workaround further underscores the rapidly changing landscape of AI, where innovation and resourcefulness may matter just as much—if not more—than having access to the most cutting-edge hardware.

Implications for the AI Industry and Global Competition

The emergence of Deepseek R1 adds a new layer of complexity to the ongoing AI race, and it has ignited both awe and concern across the globe. On the one hand, the achievement reflects the growing capabilities of Chinese AI firms, which continue to develop competitive models despite significant technological and geopolitical barriers. On the other hand, it raises questions about the future of AI development, especially in a world where access to advanced technology is becoming increasingly divided along national lines.

The rise of Deepseek R1 also highlights the power dynamics within the global AI industry. While the United States has long been the leader in AI development, the success of a Chinese startup suggests that innovation can thrive even in the face of restrictions and competitive pressure. As the AI landscape continues to evolve, it will be interesting to see how the balance of power shifts and how the ongoing America-China rivalry shapes the future of AI development.

In conclusion, the debut of Deepseek R1 marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing America-China AI war, offering both a glimpse of the possibilities of low-cost, efficient AI development and a reminder of the complexities involved in navigating geopolitical tensions in the tech world. The future of AI development is likely to be shaped by these factors, with the global competition for dominance in AI showing no signs of slowing down.

[beardedmrbean]

South Korea has banned new downloads of China's DeepSeek artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot, according to the country's personal data protection watchdog.

The government agency said the AI model will become available again to South Korean users when "improvements and remedies" are made to ensure it complies with the country's personal data protection laws.

In the week after it made global headlines, DeepSeek became hugely popular in South Korea leaping to the top of app stores with over a million weekly users.

But its rise in popularity also attracted scrutiny from countries around the world which have imposed restrictions on the app over privacy and national security concerns.

South Korea's Personal Information Protection Commission said the DeepSeek app became unavailable on Apple's App Store and Google Play on Saturday evening.

It came after several South Korean government agencies banned their employees from downloading the chatbot to their work devices.

South Korea's acting president Choi Sang-mok has described Deepseek as a "shock", that could impact the country's industries, beyond AI.

Despite the suspension of new downloads, people who already have it on their phones will be able to continue using it or they may just access it via DeepSeek's website.

China's DeepSeek rocked the technology industry, the markets and America's confidence in its AI leadership, when it released its latest app at the end of last month.

Its rapid rise as one of the world's favourite AI chatbots sparked concerns in different jurisdictions.

Aside from South Korea, Taiwan and Australia have also banned it from all government devices.

The Australian government has insisted its ban is not due to the app's Chinese origins, but because of the "unacceptable risk" it says it poses to national security.

Italy's regulator, which briefly banned ChatGPT in 2023, has done the same with DeepSeek.

The company has been asked to address concerns over its privacy policy before it becomes available again on app stores.

Data protection authorities in France and Ireland have also posed questions to DeepSeek about how it handles citizens' personal information - including whether it is stored on servers in China, as its privacy policy suggests.

It also says that, like other generative AI tools, it may collect information such as email addresses and dates of birth, and use input prompts to improve their product.

Meanwhile, lawmakers in the US have proposed a bill banning DeepSeek from federal devices, citing surveillance concerns.

At the state-government level, Texas, Virginia and New York, have already introduced such rules for their employees.

DeepSeek's "large language model" (LLM) has reasoning capabilities that are comparable to US models such as OpenAI's o1, but reportedly requires a fraction of the cost to train and run.

That has raised questions about the billions of dollars being invested into AI infrastructure in the US and elsewhere.

[mariacallous]

For a company worth nearly $3 trillion, facing an unexpected cost of a few billion dollars may sound relatively paltry. But U.S. chipmaker Nvidia’s announcement in a regulatory filing earlier this month that it expected to incur costs of up to $5.5 billion as a result of new U.S. export controls sent the company’s stock tumbling more than 6 percent the following day and caused a collective shiver throughout the semiconductor chip industry.

Nvidia’s hefty financial hit comes from a new Trump administration rule requiring the company to acquire a special license to sell its H20 chips in China, adding another hurdle in accessing one of the world’s biggest tech markets and the United States’ foremost competitor in the race for artificial intelligence.

The Trump administration has said that the new license requirement is intended to prevent the chips from being “used in, or diverted to, a supercomputer in China,” according to Nvidia’s filing. It’s the latest attempt by the United States to slow China’s AI development and preserve the United States’ advantage.

The perennial question hanging over U.S. restrictions on Chinese tech over the past eight years has been how well they are actually working. Significant milestones in China this year—such as the launch of the advanced AI model DeepSeek-R1 and advances in semiconductor chips from tech giant Huawei—have reignited that debate.

Some experts and policymakers are now questioning whether it’s too late to keep China from catching up to U.S. AI technology, and whether the United States should instead pursue a more collaborative approach with Beijing on AI development and regulation.

Nvidia created the H20 as a workaround for U.S. government restrictions on another one of its chips—the H800, which the Biden administration banned the company from selling to China in October 2023. The H800 had also been created in response to earlier restrictions by the Biden administration on Nvidia’s sales.

Now, Trump has moved the goalposts again.

“The first round of chip controls came and they set this bar, and then Nvidia said: ‘OK, we’ll build the fanciest thing we can that’s allowed, and sell a bunch of them, because we’ve just been told we could sell those’—and then a bunch of people in Washington were angry, as if this was a sort of unpatriotic thing to do,” said Graham Webster, a research scholar at Stanford University who focuses on China’s tech policy. “I think [Nvidia’s] orientation is pretty consistent—build increasingly advanced chips and sell as many as they can to whoever they can get them to,” he said.

Nvidia’s graphics processing units (GPUs)—a type of semiconductor circuit that the company invented in 1999—have exploded in popularity recently because of their critical role in training artificial intelligence models such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT and its competitors. They have also made the company’s products a prime target of export controls by successive U.S. administrations intent on curbing China’s access to advanced technology.

Trump’s first administration began that effort, restricting Huawei from access to semiconductor chips and other U.S. technology by placing the company (and other Chinese firms) on the Commerce Department’s so-called “entity list” in 2019. The Biden administration broadened the fight in 2022, imposing export restrictions on chips and chipmaking technology to China and continuing to periodically expand those restrictions all the way up until the end of Biden’s term in January.

One of the big uncertainties hanging over Trump’s return to the White House was how his past hawkishness on China pre-Biden would manifest itself post-Biden. While there have been some reversals (see: TikTok) and some continuations (see: trade war), early signs of his second-term strategy to curb China’s semiconductor industry point to more of the same.

But this time around, Trump is facing a slew of recent reminders from China of its continued—and, to Washington, alarming—progress.

None of those reminders have been sharper than DeepSeek, whose R1 language model—released in late January—showcased capabilities rivaling those of U.S. leader OpenAI but at a fraction of the cost and computing power.

DeepSeek’s debut sent shock waves through Washington, though experts still debate the extent to which it actually constituted a dreaded “Sputnik moment” for American AI.

“The strength of the reaction in Washington showed that many people didn’t realize what a fast follower China was,” said Helen Toner, the director of strategy and foundational research grants at Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology. “It was a good reality check.”

More pointedly, DeepSeek’s unveiling raised questions for U.S. policymakers about the effectiveness of export controls. That’s because DeepSeek’s success came on the back of American chips—the company trained its model largely using Nvidia’s H800 and H20 GPUs. These chips were acquired legally. DeepSeek stockpiled enough H800s before the Biden administration clamped down on the chips in 2023. In the ever-expanding game of whack-a-mole, the U.S. government was swinging a beat too late.

At the same time, Chinese AI companies’ inability to access the most cutting-edge U.S. chips may have paradoxically supercharged their innovation by forcing them to be more resourceful, as was the case with DeepSeek.

“Here in China, DeepSeek has really encouraged people who pay attention to AI development, because they believe it shows that even under sanctions and different kinds of embargoes of the United States, a Chinese company can still find a way to catch up,” said Xiao Qian, the vice dean of the Institute for AI International Governance and the deputy director of the Center for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University in Beijing.

And DeepSeek isn’t alone. China’s top AI models are rapidly closing in on their U.S. peers despite the restrictions, according to benchmarking by Stanford University’s Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. In March, Kai-Fu Lee, the Beijing-based CEO of the investment firm 01.AI and a leading AI expert, told Reuters that Chinese AI companies now lag behind U.S. firms by only three months in core technologies.

Chinese tech giants have also been racing to pump out their own advanced chips. Reuters reported that Huawei is preparing to launch its new Ascend 910c AI chip, which Chinese companies are expected to use to replace H20s, as soon as next month. The company is also testing the 910d, which it hopes will supersede the power of Nvidia’s H100—one of the previously banned chips—for model training.

“There’s a very strong sense of insecurity here in China,” Xiao said. “Because of the unpredictability of the Trump administration, we really don’t know what is ahead, so it is natural that all the companies within China are trying to be more self-sufficient, even though at the moment they are still very strongly dependent on the Nvidia chips.”

Taken together, China’s advancements haven’t exactly been a glowing testament to U.S. export restrictions. Yet many experts argue that the policy still has legs.

Chinese AI companies have continued to do whatever they can to buy U.S. chips, which proves their superior quality and performance, said Miles Brundage, a nonresident senior fellow at the Institute for Progress who previously worked as the head of policy research at OpenAI. Before Trump brought the hammer down on H20 chips, Chinese companies had placed orders for 1.3 million of them, totaling more than $16 billion.

The H20s were highly sought after because they are specifically designed for inference—the actual running of a trained model, which is becoming an increasing focus of AI innovation as AI is used more widely. Depriving Chinese companies of these chips could present a real stumbling block.

“In terms of setting back the kind of scale of near-term AI training runs, as well as inference, perhaps more importantly, in China, I’d say it’s a big deal,” Brundage said.

And for the next round of AI advancements, some experts argue that the sheer volume of advanced chips is still a difference maker.

China “finds a lot of ways to come up with innovative developments that maybe are less compute intensive, but they still haven’t quite worked around the fact that the U.S. is still the lead in compute, and we still have access to the most chips and the most computing resources, and that scale still really matters,” said Liza Tobin, the managing director at the geopolitical risk advisory firm Garnaut Global, who previously served as the China director for the National Security Council under both the Biden and Trump administrations. “The demands of scaling and AI just keep going up and up, and that still does give the U.S. an advantage, but it’s not an absolute advantage, and it’s not a permanent advantage.”

Even though the U.S. policy of restricting China likely has an expiration date, proponents argue that it is worth pursuing as long as possible for one reason above all else: the military implications. Both the Trump and Biden administrations have pointed to the potential for AI to confer new military advantages to China as the primary driver of U.S. policy.

There is still debate about how significantly AI could supercharge China’s military capabilities. The opacity of the People’s Liberation Army has made it hard for researchers to assess China’s progress and plans. Experts describe a wide range of concerns, ranging from the more mundane—including AI models being applied to increase supply-chain efficiency for ammunition and other battlefield resources—to the more nightmarish, such as AI being used to control vast swarms of drones in an invasion of Taiwan.

Due to China’s military-civil fusion policy, which calls for harnessing cutting-edge commercial technologies to strengthen the military, advocates for U.S. controls say that it is necessary for the United States to continue targeting the flow of advanced chips to China as a whole.

“Slowing down China’s military modernization is so important that we should take some risks and incur some costs, especially in those areas where China might be using our capabilities … particularly these high-end chips,” said Jacob Stokes, the deputy director of the Indo-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security.

But another camp argues that the costs are too high—especially considering that the policy will likely only buy the United States a limited amount of time.

The most visible cost is the hit to corporations’ bottom lines. Nvidia, with a market capitalization not far behind the United Kingdom’s GDP, certainly isn’t the most sympathetic victim, and some AI scholars have argued that soaring demand for the company’s chips in Western nations means that it can easily compensate for the lost revenue from the China market.

But others warn that Washington’s restrictions will eventually come at a cost for U.S. companies, which will be increasingly cut out of the Chinese market as its ecosystem becomes more independent. If U.S. companies do see an overall hit to their revenue, that could reduce their research and development budgets and cause them to lose ground to Chinese competitors over time.

“The restrictions on the H20 are a particularly egregious example of the ‘small gain, high cost’ policy the U.S. has pursued with respect to U.S. hardware companies and China,” said Paul Triolo, a partner at the advisory firm DGA-Albright Stonebridge Group who leads the firm’s technology practice.

Of greatest concern to Triolo and others who question the logic of export restrictions is that AI safety conversations have been displaced by the all-out effort to win the U.S.-China race. During the Biden administration, there were efforts to simultaneously curb China and collaborate on safety standards, with some success. In the final months of the administration, both sides agreed to maintain human control over nuclear weapons.

For these critics, the U.S. focus on restrictions is undermining further safety talks.

“The international discussion on this is very, very limited, and because China and the U.S. lack trust, it is impossible for the two countries to talk about this at the moment,” Xiao said. “We now rely on each country to be self-disciplined, but that is really not a way forward.”

Even for those who support continued restrictions, Washington’s lack of plan for a future of AI parity with China is a concern.

“I think clearly on net it is good to restrict the supply” of chips in the near term, Brundage said. But, he added, the United States also needs to “plan ahead for a scenario where we’ll have to eventually work together on shared safety and security standards and prepare for the kind of military and other consequences of China making these advances in AI. I think it’s good to delay them. But delaying is not a long-term solution.”

For now, the Trump team has indicated that those discussions are not a priority.

“The AI future is not going to be won by hand-wringing about safety,” U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance said in a speech at the AI Action Summit in Paris in February.

The next big test for the United States’ ambitions to outpace China will be the extent to which it can bring the rest of the world—particularly traditional U.S. allies and partners—into the fold.

The imminent challenge for Trump on that front is finalizing another Biden holdover. The Biden administration pushed its “Framework for Artificial Intelligence Diffusion” out the door a week before Trump’s return to the White House.

The framework, more commonly known as the AI diffusion rule, divides countries into three tiers of access to advanced U.S. AI technology. The top tier features 18 close U.S. allies who enjoy near-unrestricted access, including Canada, Germany, and Taiwan, while the bottom tier includes roughly two dozen arms-embargoed adversaries such as China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, where chips exports are totally banned.

Most other (more than 150) countries are in the second tier, which will be subject to strict licensing requirements for advanced chips and software parameters critical to developing AI models and data centers.

The Biden administration included a 120-day public comment period that kicked the rule’s implementation down the road into the hands of the Trump administration, setting May 15 as the deadline for countries and companies—many of which, including Nvidia, Microsoft, the United Arab Emirates, and the Czech Republic, have lobbied against it—to comply. The final shape that rule takes under Trump will be seen as a bellwether for U.S. AI strategy going forward.

The Trump administration has thus far provided few windows into its thinking, with the closest and most recent coming during a confirmation hearing for Jeffrey Kessler, the Commerce Department’s new undersecretary for industry and security, who will oversee export control implementation. Kessler described the AI diffusion rule as “very complex and bureaucratic,” adding that it was “one of the things I would like to review” once confirmed.

“The identification of the problem was largely correct, but I am not sure this is the right solution,” he said.

That Trump instinct to try to simplify policy (the administration is reportedly considering scrapping the country tiers altogether) as much as possible could run counter to the president’s broader China containment strategy, said Toner of Georgetown University.

“It can be simple, or you can constrain China, or you can help U.S. industry,” she said. “You have to pick two of those three.”

[theaenetworks]

China took everyone to an unprecedented surprise in heated dominance in AI industry as Deepseek seemed to have knocked ChatGPT out of their perch. Deepseek programme was released on January 20, a week later it hits top of Apple’s App Store chart. Deepseek is a Chinese AI startup founded in 2023 by Laing Feng, an entrepreneur and businessman. In January, Deepseek released latest model of its programme- Deepseek R1, a free AI-powered chatbot with resemblance as ChatGPT, with improved features which leaves OpenAI company running behind. Chatbots are computer programmes which duplicate human-style conversation with a user. When a user ask questions it generates response from information it has been trained with.

Generative AI has become popular especially the ability to have conversations with a user, this is the aspect of the AI that has evolved human conversation, the response feel real but you can argue that it lacks the needed empathy to make it resonates. The reliance on generative AI has grown, people are looking at the most effective response that’s where heated dominance in tech industry will define the role of Deepseek and ChatGPT which goes down on users reliance as the most effective. Developers of Deepseek said it is cheaper to build, which followed the article they published on December stating that it require less than $6million. This is no way compared to multi-billion dollar budget shared between US tech giants; ChatGPT and Gemini, powered by OpenAI and US-owned Google respectively.

Nvidia, lost nearly $600billion in market capitalization, as a result of Deepseek exploits at its release, Nvidia, American multinational which holds almost monopoly on making semiconductors for generative AI recorded this lost when the share price declined by 17 percent. However, security issues surrounding Deepseek have been heavily feared by many countries as they tend to ban the AI software. US space agency NASA, has prohibited Deepseek from its systems and devices of its employees, US Navy has admonished its members against using the software citing serious security concerns and handling of personal data, US lawmakers are not ruling out the possibility introducing a bill to ban the software from government owned devices.

Australia, Taiwan and South Korea have blocked Deepseek from government owned devices, while Italy is still seeking clarity on how Deepseek tend to use personal data and also citing security concerns. CEO of Feroot Security, an Ontario-based cybersecurity firm, Ivan Tsarynny, claimed that Deepseek “has code hidden in its programming which has the built-in capability to send user data directly to the Chinese government”. This has been the same security concerns surrounding Tiktok which led to the prospect of its ban in America. China refused to be side-lined in all these bans flying around their software and has replicated the retaliatory attack by blocking all users in China from access to Facebook, X and Deepseek counterpart, ChatGPT. It is about how these technologies evolve off security concerns and fear of mishandling of personal data.

https://anthonyemmanuel.com/flexing-of-tech-muscles-reach-all-time-high-as-deepseek-and-chatgpt-lock-horns-in-heated-dominance/

#DeepSeek #DeepSeekR1 #DeepSeekAI #deepseek #openai #chatgpt #technology #tech #TechInnovation