The Ministry of Commerce responds to US accusations of “industrial-scale” distillation by Chinese AI companies: it is an act of technological hegemony

The Zhitong Finance App learned that a Ministry of Commerce spokesperson answered questions from reporters about the US issuing cybersecurity announcements related to Chinese artificial intelligence companies' distillation activities in the US. A press spokesperson said that the Chinese side believes that the US allegation that a Chinese artificial intelligence company is engaged in distilling American models on an “industrial scale” is unfounded and unfounded in law. The US side's move is to politicize and instrumentalize distillation, a normal technical and commercial issue in the industry, and to establish double standards in practice. The relevant announcement by the US side is yet another clear proof that it is implementing technological hegemony, monopoly computing power, and suppressing competition in the field of artificial intelligence. The Chinese side firmly opposes this.

The original text is as follows:

A Ministry of Commerce spokesperson answers reporters' questions about the US issuing cybersecurity announcements related to Chinese artificial intelligence companies' distillation activities in the US

Q: On September 8, EST, the US National Security Agency, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Administration, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation jointly issued a notice accusing Chinese artificial intelligence companies of carrying out “industrial-scale” distillation against the US, obtaining cutting-edge US model capabilities, and recommending relevant defensive measures to US companies. What comments does the Chinese side have on this?

A: We have taken note of the situation. The Chinese side believes that the US side's allegation that Chinese artificial intelligence companies are engaged in distilling American models on an “industrial scale” is unfounded and unfounded in law. The US side's move is to politicize and instrumentalize distillation, a normal technical and commercial issue in the industry, and to establish double standards in practice. The relevant announcement by the US side is yet another clear proof that it is implementing technological hegemony, monopoly computing power, and suppressing competition in the field of artificial intelligence. The Chinese side firmly opposes this.

Distillation is a common practice for models to learn from each other in the field of artificial intelligence. It is essentially a neutral technology method, and model companies around the world, including US companies, use it. This technical approach can help models improve learning efficiency and achieve more efficient use of human knowledge. It has positive significance for countries to develop the artificial intelligence industry, unleash the potential of artificial intelligence technology, bridge the development gap, and benefit developing countries and the public more widely.

The US approach is a typical double standard. Regarding artificial intelligence, China encourages open source, cooperation and sharing. The Chinese open source model is open to global enterprises, including US companies, to facilitate the development of related models. The US company's relevant model development report also revealed that it has distilled a large number of Chinese models. On the other hand, the US side has repeatedly unilaterally accused Chinese companies of engaging in “industrial-scale” distillation and discrediting common industry practices as an act of attack, which not only reflects the anxiety of the US side, but also reflects double standards.

The US side's approach is a typical industry monopoly in the name of cracking down on distillation. The US side issued a notice by the security department to bind the interests of individual enterprises and capital to national security and use powerful national agencies to interfere with normal commercial activities. We have noticed that individual artificial intelligence companies in the US have abused their competitive advantage and set hegemonic clauses such as broad geographical restrictions in user agreements. The US side's related distillation accusations are suspected of endorsing these hegemonic clauses.

The US side's approach is a typical use of national power to maintain technological hegemony and a monopoly on computing power to suppress competition. Since this year, the US administration and legislature have frequently issued sanctions and threats against the distillation practices of Chinese companies. The purpose is to suppress competition and maintain America's monopoly on computing power and data. Only the US can win alone, not a win-win situation for humans, turn global artificial intelligence resources that should have been obtained openly and fairly into the exclusive resources of a small number of enterprises, and prevent other countries from participating in the inclusive sharing of AI innovations.

Currently, the big model industry is in a critical period of technological iteration, repeated risks, and growth and development. As major countries, China and the US should take a positive and responsible approach to the challenges and risks faced in the field of artificial intelligence. The heads of state of the two countries have agreed to engage in intergovernmental dialogue on artificial intelligence, and China is willing to engage in constructive and professional discussions with the US through dialogue based on the principles of equality, mutual benefit, and win-win cooperation. However, if the US side carries out actions to suppress Chinese artificial intelligence companies in the name of cracking down on distillation, China will definitely take firm measures to counter them. We hope that the US and China will move in the opposite direction, manage and control risks through dialogue and communication, and promote the artificial intelligence industry to benefit the world.

This article was selected from the “Ministry of Commerce” official website, Zhitong Finance Editor: Jiang Yuanhua.