Chinese barges would loom large in a Taiwan invasion – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Is China prepared to invade Taiwan in a manner similar to D-Day?

Following the emergence of photos and videos of large new Taiwanese ships designed for land-to-sea defense operations, that has undoubtedly been the voice of some of the monitoring. The fact that China conducted a two-day military exercise in the Taiwan Strait on April 1, 2025, has only heightened these concerns.

The intriguing thing about these musings about a possible conflict involving China, which has one of the most advanced militaries in the world, is that they are supported by references to technology that was first used by the Allies on June 6, 1944, in particular the Mulberry Harbours, floating piers, on the beaches of Normandy.

Using the World War II case, as an analyst on the history and geography of the Mulberry Harbours, allegedly reveals a lot more than it does, in terms of the current political situation. In fact, the proper situation in China and Taiwan is radically different from what the new Chinese ships are technically similar to their historical predecessors.

On the Pacific before, concern?

Perhaps the most urgent safety concern for countries in the Asia-Pacific area is the possibility of a Taiwanese invasion of Taiwan, an area that the Chinese Communist Party considers to be part of its territory.

During the presidency of President Xi Jinping, Beijing has been ratcheting up the violent language against the government in Taipei. Taiwan’s label as a rogue or separatist province is, for some, a clear indicator of an intention to enter and place the island within the boundaries of Taiwanese sovereignty, even though one reading of Xi suggests that his rhetoric is part of a strategic plan to burnish Chinese power worldwide.

The Trump administration showed early signs that the country’s national security was in danger, even though Washington’s intentions regarding Taiwan’s protection are still ambiguous, much like the president’s best policy positions toward Beijing.

Any Chinese invasion of Taiwan would imply attempting an incredibly difficult military operation that is generally speaking a risky proposition, aside from the geopolitics. Seaborne invasions frequently resulted in higher deaths or even complete failure.

For instance, the Gallipoli landings in World War I on Turkey’s coastline caused the largely Australian and New Zealand forces to withdraw after a large casualty and little territorial gain. The island-hopping by American forces to stop Japan’s advance in World War II achieved corporate objectives, but at a higher cost to the population.

The administrative challenge of continuing to cone troops and supplies to support a push out from the bridgehead is not just the fights on Day 1. The boats come into play at that point.

About those boats from World War II…

Winston Churchill, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, was skeptical that a takeoff on the Flemish coast would help the United States launch a top against Nazi Germany. The administrative puzzle was Churchill’s and his generals ‘ primary concern.

They argued that German would sometimes sabotage European ports or keep control of them, and that ports would not allow the raising of tanks, weapons, soldiers, and other necessities.

By designing a series of floating bridges that were fixed to superior anchors, The Mulberry Harbours addressed the issue. Boats may dock at these bridges and unload the required cargo.

An inner circle of masonry caissons that were dragged across the stream and sunk into position, as well as an external breakwater for scuttled ships, protected the piers. The Mulberry Harbours incorporated innovative wharf design with improvisation.

A pier unloading military supplies.
In 1944, the Allies ‘ products were loaded into Mulberry Harbour and the ship was unloaded at Colleville, France. Three Lions / Getty Images via The Talk

Although the technology has advanced, the idea of an operating need for administrative assistance of a beachhead breakout is still present in today’s images of Taiwanese invasion barges.

However, any invasion’s landscape is completely unique. The Mulberry Harbours participated in a continent-conquering war from an area during World War II. However, a Taiwanese invasion of Taiwan would be the opposite of moving from a globe to an area.

Chinese characteristics, tremendous power politicians

Even though Mulberry Harbours were inventive, they were only the start of a longer political approach.

The exchange of US military would through Operation Bolero over the Atlantic culminated with the D-Day war. Simply put, the United Kingdom turned into a sizable inventory, primarily for US military and products.

The Mulberry Harbours made it possible for these people and weapons to cross the English Channel. The prediction of US power over the Atlantic Ocean and Europe was completed with this move. I interpret this as a pics moving from its southern waters to distant waters in another region of the world.

China’s estimate is incredibly diverse. Ships undoubtedly did aid an invasion of the Taiwan Strait. However, China recognizes Taiwan as a part of its close lakes and wants to protect those waters from international competition.

Beijing believes that since World War II, the US has a military presence merely off its coast, adding another group of far-off US waters to its global reputation.

China is surrounded by a US defense base in Okinawa, Guam, and the Philippines, from its point of view. By imposing a blockade on Taiwan, China could stifle its ambitions, and it could also close a gap in the network.

China, of training, doesn’t just keep an eye on its nearby waters. It has also established a military base in Djibouti, established an ocean-going defense army, and expanded its Belt and Road Initiative to include areas of economic and political acclaim across the Indian, Pacific, Arctic, and Atlantic waters.

Chinese invasion boats may be deployed very early in the country’s transition from close to distant waters. Likewise, once the United States had secured its Caribbean, Atlantic, and Pacific near lakes, the Mulberry Harbours were deployed.

a component of a procedure

An interesting way to examine the new Chinese war barges and consider the size of geopolitics are traditional comparisons and technical issues.

China-Taiwan tensions are just another contemporary example of a local theater being a part of a larger world process of energy projection, just like the World War II case. So, the similarities to Mulberry Harbours are not with the technologies itself but rather with its function in a system of traditional political change.

The recent resurgence of the war barge technology may indicate the start of a new conflict.

Ironically, China would be using Mulberry Harbour-style technology to secure its place in the eastern Pacific at the same time as the Trump presidency is questioning the proper price of the US presence in Europe, which was established through World War II and, at least in part, through the use of Mulberry Harbours.

Utah State University’s recognized professor of social science is Colin Flint.

This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the text of the content.

Continue Reading

Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs will hurt literally everyone – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

It resembled a reality TV suspense. Some folks had never even heard of taxes up until recently. There has been a lot of life foreign policy of so-called” Liberation Day,” as US President Donald Trump laid out taxes that will be imposed on nations all over the world.

Trump just announced that a new “baseline” 10 % tax would apply to goods into the United States from all nations just hours ago. US Customs and Border Protection will charge an additional tax on items that cross the border.

The higher mutual tariffs on personal nations are anticipated to start on April 5 and the lower ones on April 9 respectively. That eliminates the opportunity for companies to update their supply stores.

What might the upcoming “episode” have in store for the rest of the world? We can anticipate that some nations will retaliate, imposing tariffs and other customary tariffs. That has its dangers.

Taxes on the entire world

No nation, including many of the US’s standard friends, has been spared from the current benchmark taxes.

Vietnam will be one of the hardest hit countries, coming in at 46 % price. The most recent statement will also have an impact on China, South Korea, and Japan, which are all tariff-exempt. 20 % is applicable to the European Union.

Numerous nations already vowed to react.

Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, stated in a recent statement that” all tools are on the board.” She added that the EU members ‘” safe harbor” is the single market.

Apparently, Canada was spared from the original 10 % price. However, it still has to deal with the recently announced 25 % taxes on the electrical and other industries.

Nothing in terms of reprisal has been said by Canada’s new prime minister, Mark Carney, as “nothing is off the board.”

significant levies in Asia

China’s 34 % tax is a more deterioration to already tense relations between the world’s two largest economy.

Vietnam has been attempting to avoid tax risks because it relies a lot on the US market. Jailed Taiwanese citizens from the US have also been made in unprecedented numbers as a result.

Up until this point, Vietnam had benefited from conflicts between the US and China. These new, enormous tariffs will have significant ripple effects not only on Vietnam, but also on less economically developed countries like Myanmar and Cambodia ( 49 % tariff ) and Myanmar ( 44 % tariff ).

Vietnam has a 46 % tax on it. Luong Thai Linh / EPA via The Talk

Is it worthwhile to fight again?

Resilient nations might not have the means to fight back. Given the resource gap, it is difficult to think what influence Cambodia or Myanmar might have on the US.

Different nations believe it is unworthy of the battle. Australia, for instance, is right to wonder if a tit-for-tat approach is successful or will only increase the issue.

Russia is one of the nations that has flocked under the sensor. Russian industry is limited and subject to sanctions. However, according to US press reports, Trump wants to bolster the buying relationship in the future.

The US Postal Service had a dream.

What business experts refer to as the “de minimis” law as one of the interesting side effects of Trump’s disclosures is that typically, if you make a small order online, you don’t have to spend transfer taxes when the product arrives in your state.

Trump fixed this flaw in February. Even if the price is below the “de minimis” quantity of US$ 800, US tariffs still apply to all.

This won’t really be a problem for offline retailers. Every minute, roughly 100 000 little parcels travel to the US. Taxes will now be calculated for each item and coordinated with US Customs and Border Protection.

The new taxes will also apply to small imported deals that were previously exempt.  Photo: Nati Harnik / AP via The Talk

Retaliation and strikes

We may anticipate a rise in consumer reaction both locally and globally. One example of the “elbows up” activity in Canada is.

Consumers are now making a decision to turn their attention away from US products, criticizing the Trump administration’s policies on business, variety, equality, environmental protection, sex rights, and other issues.

Buyers should be cautious about jumping on the bandwagon without doing their homework, though. The local franchise owner will also be affected by boycotting a US fast food restaurant, which may make you feel better ( and admittedly may be better for your health ).

Killing Americans in large numbers is also not effective because many Americans are seriously upset about what is happening.

claiming success while paying more to customers

One of Trump’s mantras that was made famous in the most recent film, The Apprentice, is the imminent state of success.

After Trump’s earlier price announcements this year, the US trade deficit increased as importers scrambled to hoard supplies ahead of price increases. Because the taxes go into effect in only three days, this can happen this time.

If exports return to normal, the regular business gap will decrease, giving Trump a chance to assert that the policies are effective, even if it is just a rebound effect.

However, these taxes did harm rather than assist regular Americans. A$ 20 t-shirt could soon go up to almost$ 30, devoid of US sales taxes, as a result of everyday purchases like clothing ( made in places like Vietnam, Cambodia, and China ).

The world may be prepared for more episodes, more cliffhangers, and more doubt as this business drama in the style of reality TV continues to develop.

Professor of Law at UNSW Sydney is Lisa Toohey.

This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the text of the content.

Continue Reading

Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs will hit US hardest – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Donald Trump’s” Liberation Day” tariffs have now been more clearly understood, and how they will impact other trading partners, including the United States itself.

The US government claims that these import tariffs will lower the country’s trade deficit and tackle what it perceives as cruel and non-reciprocal trade practices. Trump predicted this did occur.

long remembered as the rebirth of America’s economy and life.

The “reciprocal” tariffs are intended to establish costs equal to half of what tariffs, money manipulation, and other-country tariffs are supposed to impose on US exporters.

A tax number that may apply to the majority of products was provided by each country. Steel, metal, and engine vehicles, which are already subject to new tariffs, are renowned industries free.

The smallest base price for each nation is 10 %. But many countries received higher numbers, including Vietnam ( 46 % ), Thailand ( 36 % ), China ( 34 % ), Indonesia ( 32 % ), Taiwan ( 32 % ) and Switzerland ( 31 % ).

The total tariff on Chinese imports is 54 %, which is in addition to the current 20 % tariff. Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom are among the nations that have been given 10 % taxes.

For the moment, products from Canada and Mexico are free from the reciprocal taxes, but they are still subject to a 25 % tax under a separate professional order.

The estimates behind these calculations are open to dispute, even though some nations do impose higher taxes on US products than the US does on their exports and the” Liberation Day” tariffs are claimed to only be half the mutual rate.

For instance, non-tariff measures are extremely difficult to estimate and” content to many uncertainty,” according to a recent study.

Retaliation and GDP effects

Different nations are now possible to impose retaliatory tariffs on US goods. The EU, China, and Canada, which are the top exporters, have all pledged to do the same.

I use a global type of the manufacturing, trade, and consumption of goods and services to measure the effects of this tit-for-tat business standoff. Institutions, academics, and consulting firms use similar modeling tools to evaluate legislation changes, which are known as” computable general equilibrium versions.”

The earliest model resembles a scenario where the US imposes bilateral and other fresh tariffs and other nations impose equivalent tariffs on US goods. The table below illustrates estimated GDP changes brought on by US mutual tariffs and other nation hostile taxes.

The tariffs decrease US GDP by US$ 438.4 billion ( 1.45 % ). GDP per household falls by$ 3,487 annually as the country’s 126 million homes are divided. that is greater than any other nation’s related decreases. ( All figures are in US dollars. )

Mexico ( 2.24 % ) and Canada ( 1.65 % ) both experienced the largest proportional GDP declines, with these countries exporting more than 75 % of their goods to the US. The cost of living in Mexico is$ 1, 192 per year, while American households are$ 2, 467 annually.

Vietnam ( 0.99 % ) and Switzerland ( 0.2 % ) are two other countries that have experienced relative large GDP declines.

Some countries profit from the business conflict. These typically have relatively low US tariffs ( and, as a result, US goods also get fairly low taxes ). The GDP increases most significantly in Brazil and New Zealand ( 0.29 % ). New Zealand families earn more money by$ 397 annually.

The rest of the world’s agglomerate GDP, with the exception of the US, falls by$ 62 billion.

At the global level, GDP decreases by$ 500 billion ( 0.43 % ). The well-known tenet that business war reduce the world economy is confirmed by this outcome.

GDP has no retribution.

What would happen if additional countries didn’t heed the US tariffs, according to the modeling in the following scenario. The tables below shows the changes in the GDP of some of the states.

The largest equivalent declines in GDP are those countries that are subject to fairly high US tariffs and export a large portion of their goods to the US. These include China, Mexico, Vietnam, Thailand, Taiwan, Switzerland, South Korea, and Canada.

Countries with comparatively lower fresh tariff gains, such as the UK, which sees the most GDP growth.

Because the tariffs cause an increase in US consumer prices and production costs, they reduce US GDP by$ 149 billion ( 0. 9 % ).

The rest of the world’s overall GDP is down by$ 155 billion, more than twice the amount of the same amount before retribution. This suggests that the rest of the world is mitigate costs by retaliating. Retaliation also results in a worse results for the US.

Sand was dust in the cogs of global trade during the Trump administration’s prior tax announcements. The mutual levies stow a strop in the sand. In the end, the US might suffer the most financial losses.

At Auckland University of Technology, Niven Winchester is professor of economics.

The Conversation has republished this essay under a Creative Commons license. Read the original post.

Continue Reading

US and its allies are undergoing a digital Pearl Harbor attack – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Although the reports may look sporadic and empirical, they add up to a disturbing pattern. Foreign state-affiliated thieves cracked Microsoft’s internet sky structure and penetrated the message systems of the US sections of Commerce, Treasury and State. In Guam, a crucial command and control center for the Navy’s Seventh Fleet, another thieves hacked into the US government’s communications system.

In what is being referred to as one of the worst knowledge agreements in American history, the US government announced that Salt Typhoon, an affiliate of the Chinese government, used threats in Cisco devices to elude the methods of nine US communications firms, including AT&amp, T, and Verizon.

According to the New York Times,” No one at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency ( CISA ) seems able to say what has happened to the investigation into one of the most successful penetrations of American networks, or who is now responsible for figuring out why American telecommunications firms were caught unawares, for more than a year, by China’s Ministry of State Security”.

The government is the equivalent of the US Central Intelligence Agency in China. Candidates ‘ devices in the US election of 2024 were likewise targeted by Chinese spies. And the government has announced that the Chinese have placed ransomware in America’s essential equipment that apparently had been activated at the time of Beijing’s finding.

According to CrowdStrike’s 2025 Global Threat Report, China’s cyber-espionage activity increased by 150 percent overall in 2024.

Russians have deeply penetrated as well. A thriving ransomware attack system is now hitting not just corporate targets but also schools, churches, hospitals and even blood banks.

Microsoft’s threat intelligence team recently discovered that a Russian attack group known as BadPilot has breached systems in numerous English-speaking nations around the world. The group’s objectives included “energy, oil and gas, telecommunications, shipping, arms manufacturing” and “international governments.”

In short, the Chinese and the Russians have staged a devastating Pearl Harbor-scale attack on America’s critical infrastructure and Information Technology systems. Because US tech companies built a lot of their systems, the same pattern is occurring for America’s traditional allies. Threatened data capture by adversaries is now a constant threat.

At least some planning in the West’s military, diplomatic and trade realms could be monitored and anticipated. These penetrations, which are supported by artificial intelligence, also aid in the spread of misinformation and disinformation throughout the social media world in what is now known as cognitive warfare. That offends all democracies, in my opinion.

If all this had happened at once, Americans might have been galvanized to respond, as they did in reaction to the original Pearl Harbor attack, the launching of Sputnik, and the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. However, America’s adversaries have carefully avoided any action that crosses the line of a declared war because they have studied US history.

In The Art of War, Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu wrote,” Winner is the supreme art of war without fighting.”

Far from responding forcefully as President Franklin D. Roosevelt did in 1941, the current Trump Administration seems to be enabling foreign adversaries by making a disastrous series of mistakes:

  • cutting CISA’s ranks,
  • appointing a politically connected attorney with no prior experience to serve as the White House’s cyber czar
  • exposing entire databases of sensitive data on the website of the Department of Government Efficiency and ( most spectacularly )
  • using the messaging app Signal to engage in a secret conversation about military action against Yemeni rebels.

In summary, the US’s response to the penetration of China and Russia has been a dramatic failure, both from the private and public sectors. The burning question is: Why have leaders in both sectors declined to respond to an obvious crisis?

One solution is that the United States and other democracies have not yet been able to find ways to unite the public and private sectors to find solutions as pluralistic societies. A fear of acting out of fear is also present.

Private sector boards of directors and CEO’s have not truly addressed the fundamental risk posture and vulnerability of their systems. Instead, they have developed elaborate layers of legal defense.

When a business experiences a breach, it mobilizes attorneys, cyber security experts, and insurance firms. The goal is to prove that the company followed “best practices” and was” commercially reasonable in compliance” with generally accepted practices, perhaps including changes in the responsibilities of the Chief Information Security Officer.

This cybersecurity checklist approach simply isn’t effective. Paying a well-known company to report on risk is a PR stunt, not real cybersecurity. Boards and their managements issue bland press releases after a hack, reciting such homilies as” We detect no activity” or” No material loss of personal identifying data has been recognized”.

That kind of claim is not equivalent to saying they have patched up and protected their systems after the intrusion. It appears to be a kind of Faustian bargain: businesses run their networks despite knowing that Russians or Chinese people may be hiding there to avoid costs and meet their quarterly earnings goals. It is a systemic failure.

If these uncomfortable realities were to be acknowledged, major technology companies that have provided IT and telecommunications goods and services to their customers around the world would also be humbled. After all, Big Tech in America promised to safeguard customers ‘ data in their wildly convoluted security systems, including data centers and cloud computing.

But the Chinese have become masters of exploiting” cross-vendor” open source and legacy software vulnerabilities in cloud systems. That means that if they can infer the weaknesses in the defenses of one client company, they could create a beachhead from which to discover the same weaknesses in the defenses of other businesses.

Because of a decentralized, profit-driven private sector, the US government, like other countries, cannot address the issues involving critical infrastructure.

Western governments are simply not organized to manage threats in the digital era because responsibility is too fragmented and the playing field too vast.

To successfully address these issues, coalition-building would be necessary, but today’s America operates in silos and occasionally places more of its weight on Russian allies as opposed to US institutions. Take the Intelligence Community ( IC ), which consists of 18 distinct entities.

The failure of the IC to share information was a key explanation for why the 9/11 terrorist attacks happened. The same patterns are present in today’s play. Too frequently, threats are concealed and not shared.

Moreover, the smorgasbord of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies does not always share threat information or understand the meaning of the information that is shared.

Regulations from various federal agencies for various industries regarding what must be reported and what must be done following a breach are a complete jumble, adding to this dysfunctionality.

Even the Pentagon, which has market power because it contracts to buy goods and services from 300, 000 businesses in the Defense Industrial Base, has been unable to impose auditing of these companies’ IT systems, even by third parties.

The implementation of the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification program is a positive step, but the Chinese already have stolen massive amounts of technology, including the designs for American aircraft carriers, and seem certain to continue doing so.

Americans themselves bear some of the brunt of the blame. One of the most creative and potent weapons in the history of undeclared war, TikTok, is used by 170 million people in America.

Before it was revealed that its website collects American data that TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, can view, it was widely known, with few if any regulatory hurdles. Other data-collecting Chinese algorithms like DeepSeek were enthusiastically embraced by the public.

Chinese bargain-hunting apps Shein and Temu are algorithms that gather data about their users.

When this information is layered upon the major hacks that have taken place in credit rating ( Equifax ), hotels ( Marriott’s Starwood division ), health care ( Anthem ) and detailed information about federal employees ( the Office of Personnel Management ), the Chinese and Russians are able to assemble detailed personal portraits of targeted individuals.

There might be other ways to get out of this mess. There are many ideas that merit evaluation, including the creation of a federal department of digital services or a high-level task force made up of representatives from both major corporations and government organizations to collaborate on resources and expertise. But time is limited. The best place to start is to acknowledge the magnitude of what has gone wrong and to find the courage to act.

William J. Holstein co-author of Battlefield Cyber: How China and Russia Are Undermining Our Democracy and National Security, has been following US-China relations ever since being an award-winning correspondent for United Press International in Hong Kong and Beijing from 1979 to 1982.

Assured Enterprises, Inc., a cybersecurity company in Greater Washington, DC, is led by Stephen M. Soble as chairman and CEO. He has a wealth of business and commercial experience in China as well as as an international affairs advisor.

Continue Reading

By being like Silicon Valley used to be, East Asia challenges it – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, Technology

Silicon Valley has for centuries been a widely recognized technology image. Governments around the world have tried to develop their own variations by investing strongly in tech hubs in recognition of its popularity.

These initiatives, including Silicon Beach in Los Angeles, Silicon Island in Malaysia, and Silicon Roundabout in the UK, have not always succeeded. However, some regions, especially south Asian regions, have experienced the growth of their own Silicon Valleys.

With a number of businesses and cutting-edge technology to issue Silicon Valley, China has the second-largest venture capital market in the world. Additionally, Japan and Korea have developed into some of the world’s most effective business venture capitalists.

These contender ecosystems also possess some of the characteristics of Silicon Valley in its early years, more in some ways than Silicon Valley itself does today.

Silicon Valley’s size is still, at least for the time being, unmatched. The state’s market capitalization ( the value of publicly traded company stocks ) totaled US$ 14.3 trillion in 2024. This is comparable to China’s complete GDP, the second-largest economy in the world.

Silicon Valley is no longer a multicultural society of businesses built in cars, where little, destructive businesses create world-changing products at a price point. It has changed into a David-like property, not a land of Behemoths.

Some people have switched from instant noodles to aça bowls, and work all-nighters with wellness workshops and modern detox retreats. Silicon Valley technical employees have become “lazy and entitled,” according to Sequoia’s Mike Moritz, according to Skullwart owners.

However, other tech personnel ‘ work ethic and focus have improved. Chinese technology’s working days were referred to as “996” for around ten years, working six times a week from 9am to 9pm. People now go by the name “007,” which means working from midnight to evening, seven days a week.

Great painters steal, fine artists copy, and so on.

Wikimedia Commons Silicon Valley image

The story of Silicon Valley’s history is one of eager rivals destroying the big, dull incumbents. Apple used the exposure to Xerox’s Palo Alto Research Center to draw inspiration from the company’s ideas for a computer with a graphical user interface after raising equity from Xerox, a top print production company. Eventually, Apple made the program for the Macintosh more sophisticated, giving it a distinct edge.

Work once reportedly said in 1996,” Good musicians copy, great performers steal,” and we have never been shameless in stealing great ideas.

The Goliaths in Silicon Valley today have significant intellectual property portfolio to protect. And they are angry when their technology is stolen. The US government has yet asked OpenAI, the British company that created ChatGPT, to label Chinese AI firm DeepSeek” state managed” and forbid its use there. Related names have been made to Huawei and Bytedance’s TikTok in the past.

The impact of DeepSeek’s disruption of the AI scenery on Silicon Valley has been the subject of much of Eastern media’s attention. However, less attention has been paid to how it has created moment rivals in China.

Alibaba, a Chinese tech company, announced that its AI model was better times after Deepseek’s launch. Additionally, China just introduced Manus, a completely automatic AI agent that completely replaces rather than repairs people.

On March 5, 2025, Butterfly Impact co-founder Xiao Hong explains Manus. Photo: Manus. am

Japanese business Kai-fu Lee refers to “gladiatorial entrepreneurship,” or China’s” smartphone.” Because they are aware that their product will be copied and reverse engineered as soon as it is released, they continually innovate in this tradition. The entire system gains from the fierce competition, just like Silicon Valley did in its rise.

The kids have acted as the instructors.

Silicon Valley is renowned for its antiquated tradition and expansive understanding of how technology can change the world. This is exemplified by Masayoshi Son, a former Silicon Valley student from East Asia who is the founder and CEO of the Chinese company SoftBank.

He immediately adapted to the Silicon Valley way of doing business once he arrived in the early 1980s. When he returned to Japan, Son founded his personal company, based on what he learned during his brief time living in California. With this, Softbank became a technology seller.

Masayoshi Son ( Left ) speaking at a 2011 luncheon to promote a brand-new iPhone app. Danny Choo of Wikimedia Commons and Flickr

With over US$ 100 billion in cash, SoftBank’s Vision Fund is the largest venture capital fund in the world right now.

Silicon Valley has experienced a change thanks to Son’s enormous finance and anxious investing strategy.

Soaring valuations and the use of exploding word sheets ( expense offers that expire in a few days ) are becoming more commonplace.

Child is portrayed as a traditional stranger. Lionel Barber’s most recent book, Gambbling Man, details Son’s ethnic Asian background and how he has much touted this opponent narrative.

Child is now one of the biggest buyers in Silicon Valley and is aggressive and aggressive. He has a big idea about how artificial intelligence and other solutions may alter the planet. He is the author of that great vision and a proponent of risk-taking in Silicon Valley that is” traditional.”

China’s AI warriors continually innovate in an effort to beat the once-hungry American goliaths who are now forced to call on the condition to help them maintain their position. The opposing trajectories raise questions about who needs to change to become more like whom if they want to dominate the world’s technological civilization.

Robyn Klingler-Vidra is King’s College London’s evil professor for global commitment and associate professor of political economy and innovation.

The Conversation has republished this essay under a Creative Commons license. Read the text of the content.

Continue Reading

World feels it when spending habits of 500 million Chinese change – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

China’s financial rocket ride appears to be coming to an end, or at least slowing down. After the property developer Evergrande collapse in 2024, growth dropped from 8.4 % in 2021 to 4.5 % today, youth unemployment increased to 16.9 %, and cities are rife with unfinished buildings.

On Chinese social media platforms Weibo and Red Note, a term has been circulating for a while to sum up what’s happening: “garbage day.”

It is used to refer to the final days of a match whose goal is already known. The best athletes don’t play. The chair people assume the lead. Because there is less at stake, no single tries as difficult.

The phrase seemed to get a combination of anguish and dark humor last year and seemed to have caught on. Citizens then generally seem to have less expectation. Not so much an economical fall as a sluggish decline in hope.

This is a significant change for those who were born in China during the 1980s and 1990s and who were raised there during its four years of rapid development. Jobs in technology and funding are harder to find, homes are falling in value, and wages are not rising.

However, “garbage time” is even making room for younger and middle-class Foreign to redefine victory and joy. A creation is reevaluating what is most important in a changing economic environment as fine jobs, luxury goods, and house ownership are now more difficult to obtain.

From Prada to “living lighting”

Many middle-class people in China were pursuing lofty goals ten years ago when they sent their kids abroad for education. Former president Deng Xiaoping when said,” Getting wealthy is glorious.

Some Taiwanese people totally embraced this notion. In a study of millennial consumption habits conducted in 2021, 7.6 million young Chinese spent an average of 71, 000 yuan ( US$ 10, 375 ) on luxury goods, accounting for 30 % of the global luxury market.

They now appear to be altering their course, putting that type of saving on maintain due to financial strain.

Get the “tang ping,” a growing trend that is causing more young people to reject hustle culture while embracing “living light.” Or the phrase “run xue” or “run idea,” which actually refers to the study of leaving China.

Young Chinese are getting married afterwards, also, with rising wedding expenses and changing attitudes toward traditional home values being the main causes.

Shopping practices appear to support these trends. In 2024, China’s largest used-goods owner Xianyu reached 181 million customers. Selling surpassed one trillion yuan, or ten times that of 2018. BYD, a Chinese automaker, then outsells expensive overseas companies.

More important than simply saving money is what this is about. Traditional Chinese culture values family status and career success, but job shortage and falling house prices challenge these outdated stereotypes.

Fresh Chinese are then questioning the worth of hard work in a program that may no longer reward it. They place more value on individual well-being over throwing position. If the pattern persists, it might lead to the development of a new perception of middle-class personality.

Vibrations strike the globe

The international effects of all of this are important. International businesses take notice when 500 million people alter their spending patterns.

Apple, a once-favorable manufacturer, has lost ground, while Huawei, a regional brand, gained. Li Ning, a local apparel manufacturer, is challenging Nike. Firms that had anticipated apparently endless Chinese development are now having to recalculate. Planning is made more difficult by this, along with other governmental and political complexity.

Both school and work are changing, also. Some individuals have criticized China’s rigorous education program, and its “996 work society” ( 9am to 9pm, six times a week ) is waning.

Nevertheless, China’s financial growth is sapping at a more steady rate. And the state faces significant challenges as a result of the world’s declining economic model.

China’s imports dropped at the start of this year because Donald Trump’s tax laws were looming in the background. Export increased significantly slower, but at a slower rate.

The remarkable growth of China was both the product and the beneficiary of its members of the middle class. Strong consumer confidence may be assumed because 40 % of them have seen their riches decline in recent years.

For the time being, it seems as though a new financial identity is emerging. Whether this is a long-term trend or just a proper adjustment. In any case, one thing is sure: all feels it when the country’s second-largest market changes how it spends.

Christian Yao is a mature teacher at Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington’s School of Management.

This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Study the article’s introduction.

Continue Reading

Zelensky lacks feasible alternative to taking Trump resource deal – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Trump warned&nbsp last weekend that Zelensky will own” some problems – major, major problems” if he” tries to back out of the unique earth deal” amidst&nbsp, reports&nbsp, that the most recent version of this agreement is quite lopsided.

It is claimed that it supposedly requires Ukraine to deposit half of its revenues from all reference projects and related infrastructure into a US-controlled investment fund, spend all of its debts there, and grant the US the right to make its first offer on new projects and veto over sales of resources to others.

Although Zelensky picked up his renowned fight with Trump and Vance at the White House in late February under these stricter conditions, the US is selling the entire package as a” safety guarantee” to Ukraine.

The argument is that America didn’t allow Russia to endanger these projects, which also include pipes and ports, thus causing the US to begin 2023 levels of military-intelligence assistance and possibly even rise to obtain Russia to back down.

According to the bilateral pacts that it clinched with them all throughout the year, as explained here, Ukraine basically currently enjoys these Article 5-like guarantees, but this proposed agreement gives the US real stakes in deterring or immediately putting an end to hostilities.

The trade-off, however, is that Ukraine has surrender a portion of its monetary autonomy, which is politically unsettling since Zelensky told his fellow citizens that they are fighting to keep their full independence.

Any&nbsp, agreement, ceasefire, or peace agreement would set with de facto global acknowledgement of Russian control over the five of Ukraine’s pre-2014 territory, which Kiev also claims as its own, to create the impression of a mutual irregular division if Zelensky agreed to Trump’s uneven resource deal.

If Ukraine were forced to hold&nbsp, absolutely free and fair elections, Zelensky’s political career may end, as well as his predicted reputation as the best “freedom combatant” of the 20th century.

He doesn’t have any other viable options, though, because working with Trump’s up to reach a comparatively better deal with the Brits and/or Europeans won’t produce the” safety guarantees” he’s convinced himself Ukraine needs in order to reach a settlement with Russia.

No one other than the US has a chance to completely oppose Russia, let alone the political will, and that only applies to their investments in a war-torn next nation whose source money is officially dubious.

If Zelensky chooses to pursue a more dillydallying position, Trump may once more temporarily suspend and use military and intelligence aid to Ukraine as leverage while using even harsher terms as retaliation.

In addition, the conflict with Russia would likely continue, making it impossible for Ukraine to develop its resource industry and related infrastructure despite striking a deal with someone else.

The longer the conflict continues, the greater the chance that Russia will also destroy more of those same assets.

However, if Zelensky accepts the most recent agreement, he will also receive the” security guarantees” he needs, which will increase his chances of accepting a ceasefire and, in turn, increase Trump’s influence on Putin by imposing stringent secondary sanctions on Russian oil clients.

Zelensky would risk losing his political career, his anticipated legacy in the eyes of Ukrainians, and a significant portion of the country’s economic sovereignty, but he would avoid a much worse situation than if he had rejected this deal.

Continue Reading

Taiwan’s new fighters struggle to close airpower gap with China – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Taiwan’s merger of upgraded F-16V fighters marks a major step forward, but does little to shut the yawning space with China’s fast developing air pressure.

Last month, many media outlets reported that the US delivered the first of 66 F-16C/D Block 70 fighter planes to Taiwan, marking a major step in a US$ 8 billion arms deal signed in 2019.

The transfer meeting, held at Lockheed Martin’s Greenville, South Carolina, shop, was attended by Taiwan’s Deputy Defense Minister Po Horng-Huei and its member to the US Alexander Yui.

The planes, to become stationed at Zhihang Air Base, will provide the recently formed 7th Tactical Fighter Wing, which is tasked with bolstering the region’s air defense amid growing dangers from China.

The Block 70 variant, the F-16V, features AN/APG-83 active electronically scanned array ( AESA ) radar, advanced electronic warfare systems, conformal fuel tanks and upgraded avionics.

These enable the carrying of a wide range of air-to-air and air-to-ground munitions, including the AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon. Although the first delivered jet may temporarily lack its intended electronic warfare suite due to production delays, Taiwan plans to integrate the missing systems later.

US officials highlighted the delivery as a demonstration of &nbsp, US commitment to the Taiwan Relations Act and the” Six Assurances”, underscoring continued arms sales to Taipei despite China’s opposition. Complete delivery of the 66 jets is expected by the end of 2026.

Taiwan’s new F-16V jets represent a significant improvement over its older F-16A/B fleet, which has also been upgraded to the V-standard. However, recent combat insights raise questions about their effectiveness against China’s modern airpower.

In a Defense Security Asia article last month, Yuriy Ignat, former spokesperson for Ukraine’s Air Force Command, noted that Ukraine’s upgraded F-16 AM/BM fighters – mid-life improved versions similar to Taiwan’s older models– have struggled against Russia’s Su-35s due to inferior avionics, maneuverability and weapon systems.

While Taiwan’s F-16Vs feature more advanced radar and electronic warfare systems than Ukraine’s F-16s, they could face a similar qualitative disadvantage against China’s Su-35s and its growing fleet of J-20 stealth fighters.

Likewise, Global Security notes that Taiwan’s fleet of Indigenous Defense Fighters ( IDF) is underpowered and short-range, with speculation that US political pressure has prevented Taiwan from developing long-range fighters to avoid provoking China. Although Global Security suggests that Taiwan’s IDFs may have been more advanced than any other combat aircraft China had at the time of their unveiling in the 1980s, China has since unveiled superior fighters.

Further, Steve Balestrieri mentions in a February 2025 article for 1945 that China operates 24 Su-35s, bought from Russia ostensibly as a stopgap platform until China’s J-20 stealth fighters were ready. Additionally, Maya Carlin mentions in an August 2023 article for 1945 that China has already produced 200-250 J-20 stealth fighters, marking a significant surge in production since the type was first unveiled in 2011.

It is also unlikely that Taiwan will ever operate US stealth aircraft, such as the F-35. In a December 2021 Aviation Geek Club article, Zack Lu says that the US has zero expectation that Taiwan will hold out against a Chinese invasion. He notes any US military equipment sold to Taiwan will end up in China’s hands if Taiwan capitulates.

He mentions that all US military items sold to Taiwan are either older or current-generation systems, which are of little value to China when reverse-engineered. He says the F-35 is considered too cutting-edge to be compromised.

In terms of sheer combat aircraft numbers, the US Department of Defense’s 2024 China Military Power Report mentions that China’s People’s Liberation Army Air Force ( PLAAF ) and People’s Liberation Army Navy ( PLAN ) Aviation are the largest aviation forces in the Indo-Pacific and third-largest in the world, with 3, 150 total aircraft, of which 2, 400 are combat aircraft, with 1, 900 fighters. Additionally, Admiral John Aquilino mentioned in a March 2024 US Senate Committee on Armed Services hearing that China will soon have the world’s largest air force, following its current status as having the world’s largest army and navy.

Despite those disadvantages, Taiwan’s new F-16V jets may offer the self-governing island a much-needed airpower boost. Shu Hsiao-Huang mentions in a Taipei Times article published last month that Taiwan’s new F-16V jets are equipped with the General Electric F110 engine, these jets deliver 13, 154.18 kilograms of thrust, surpassing the older F-16A/B models and enabling greater weapon-mounting capacity.

Shu notes other advanced features, including the APG-83 Scalable Agile Beam Radar, a helmet-mounted cueing system and an electronic warfare suite. He also says the jets boast a larger air intake and a US18E ejection seat.

Further, Taiwan’s new F-16V jets may be compatible with newer US munitions, significantly enhancing their effectiveness in standoff strikes.

Last month, The War Zone reported that the US is integrating the AGM-158C Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile ( LRASM) onto F-16V fighters, significantly enhancing their anti-ship capabilities. The report states that the LRASM’s stealth and adaptability surpass those of the older AGM-84 Harpoon, which Taiwan currently has, offering a range of up to 965 kilometers.

However, Kitsch Liao mentions in a Newsweek article published ast month that an air-launched LRASM capability for Taiwan might not survive China’s initial onslaught, rendering it useless to China’s amphibious landing group.

In line with that, Sebastian Roblin points out in a March 2020 article for The National Interest ( TNI ) that for Taiwan’s outnumbered fighters to make any impact, they must get off the ground – a task that may be impossible given the 1, 300 ballistic missiles and hundreds of sea, air, and land-based cruise missiles China can array against the self-governing island.

While Roblin notes that Taiwan has hardened underground air bases, its fighters may be bottled up if the runways are destroyed. Though he says that Taiwan could use highways as makeshift runways, the tempo of such operations would be sporadic at best.

However, the biggest challenge for Taiwan’s airpower may not be the self-governing island’s resource constraints but rather the inefficient US arms sales processes. In a War on the Rocks article from last month, Kevin Ting-Chen Sun and Howard Shen mention that late deliveries of F-16 jets from US defense companies critically undermine Taiwan’s defense capabilities amid escalating regional tensions.

Sun and Shen note that Taiwan’s new F-16Vs faced delays due to pandemic-related supply chain disruptions, pushing the timeline to mid-2024. Compounding this issue, they point out that the F-16A/B upgrade program, which includes essential components such as electronic warfare pods and AGM-154C glide bombs, has been postponed from 2023 to 2026.

They stress that these delays hinder Taiwan’s air defense modernization, leaving its forces reliant on outdated systems and eroding public confidence in defense spending. They emphasize that systematic inefficiencies in US arms sales execution exacerbate Taiwan’s vulnerability.

In the end, Taiwan’s F-16Vs may sharpen its defenses but without timely deliveries and an answer to China’s overwhelming missile and airpower advantage, they risk becoming just another symbol of Taipei’s shrinking military options.

Continue Reading

New polling: Does ‘America First’ mean abandoning Taiwan and Korea? – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

This post, originally published by Pacific Forum, is republished with authority.

In his first management, Donald Trump’s” America First” theory reshaped US international policy, emphasizing economic nationalism, suspicion of military relationships and a target on private interests over international agreements.

The Trump administration 2.0 more seeks to reconsider military commitments worldwide, reduce foreign support, and force allies to add more to their protection, fueling the debate over the extent of US involvement elsewhere. I assess how the government’s inside focus may concern pledges to two of the region’s longest-standing dilemmas: Taiwan and South Korea.

There are several factors to believe Trump would be less supportive of these commitments. As a member in 2024, he stated he&nbsp, did never defend Taiwan. In 2020, Trump demanded a&nbsp,$ 5 billion increase&nbsp, in what South Korea paid for the US military presence after rejecting a 14 % proposed boost, with ideas that he would pull out troops if this was not met.

Recent studies suggest Trump intends to require extra payments for the military appearance in South Korea and Japan, leading one researcher to express the presidency is&nbsp, no longer engaged in defending&nbsp, these countries or Taiwan.

Assessing public sentiment is harder.

Pew surveys&nbsp, from 2019 to 2023 find a decline, from 53 % to 43 %, of those stating the US should be active in world affairs, with 71 % of Republicans in 2023 saying the US should concentrate attention on problems at home, compared with only 39 % of Democrats.

Yet, existing evidence also suggests that the American public supports specific foreign policies. While support for Ukraine is increasingly&nbsp, divided on party lines, the same does not seem to be true for Taiwan and South Korea.

A&nbsp, 2021 Chicago Council survey&nbsp, finds a slim majority ( 52 % ) supported US troops to defend Taiwan, while&nbsp, a 2022 survey&nbsp, finds 61 % of Americans surveyed supported defending Taiwan, with slightly higher support among Democrats than Republicans ( 67.04 % vs. 60.15 % ). A 2023 YouGov poll found that most Democrats and Republicans support&nbsp, taking a strong stand&nbsp, to protect Taiwan from China.

Likewise, a 2024 Chicago Council survey finds majorities of Democrats and Republicans support the&nbsp, continuation of US military bases&nbsp, in South Korea, although the majorities are slimmer when committing troops if North Korea invaded. A 2022 IPOL survey finds little American support for&nbsp, base closures&nbsp, in South Korea, Japan, or Germany.

To identify how a more inward-looking American public would view these commitments, I commissioned a national web survey through Centiment February 12-26 to address these concerns.

We asked 522 respondents,” Which of the following best describes your views of the US role in world affairs? : ‘ We should pay less attention to problems overseas and concentrate on problems at home,’ or ‘ It’s best for the future of the country to be active in world affairs.'”

A clear majority favor focusing inward (60.54 % ) but with stark partisan differences, as a thin majority of Democrats prioritize world affairs ( 52.71 % ), nearly twice the rate of Republicans ( 27.73 % ).

The inward focus is somewhat higher than&nbsp, a 2022 survey&nbsp, that showed 54.44 % preferred an inward focus, including 43.71 % of Democrats and 67.34 % of Republicans.

Figure 1

From here, I asked two questions related to American commitments in East Asia:” Do you support or oppose the US defending Taiwan if it were attacked by China”? and, later,” Currently, the US has approximately 24, 000 active-duty military in South Korea to deter North Korean aggression. Do you support the continuation of this US presence in South Korea”?

Overall the public shows broad support for both countries, with over 60 % of respondents supporting Taiwan’s defense and the continued military presence in South Korea.

Even among those who stated the US should concentrate on domestic issues, a majority favored these foreign policy commitments, whereas over three-quarters of respondents desiring the US to be active in world affairs did so as well.

Moreover, no difference emerges between Democrats and Republicans on these commitments.

Additional statistical tests find after controlling for age, gender and income, as well as views of the country and its primary aggressor ( Taiwan: China, South Korea: North Korea ) there remain no partisan differences, while a majority of those preferring a focus on domestic policy still support these commitments.

Figure 2

Despite the growing preference among Americans for an inward-focused foreign policy, the findings suggest that this does not necessarily translate into opposition to commitments to Taiwan and South Korea.

These results indicate that an” America First” mindset does not necessarily equate to a complete withdrawal from key alliances, particularly in East Asia.

Instead, Americans may distinguish between broad foreign policy engagement and specific security commitments that align with perceived national interests. This prioritized selective engagement builds upon positive evaluations of the two countries as well as concerns about their perceived aggressors.

However, such support in the abstract ignores how the public may reevaluate commitments in light of actual costs. If a crisis in East Asia were to escalate, factors such as economic costs, military casualties and elite discourse could shape whether current bipartisan support endures or fractures along partisan lines, as seen with Ukraine.

Future research should explore how Americans weigh the risks and trade-offs of these commitments in scenarios where direct US intervention becomes more likely.

Timothy S. Rich (timothy. [email protected] ) &nbsp, is a professor of political science at Western Kentucky University and director of the International Public Opinion Lab ( IPOL ). His research focuses on public opinion and the domestic and international politics of East Asia.

Continue Reading

ChatGPT’s Studio Ghibli-style images raise new copyright problems – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, Technology

Social media lately have been flooded with pictures that looked like they belonged in a Studio Ghibli picture. Selfies, family pictures and even jokes have been re-imagined with the sweet pastel color characteristic of the Chinese graphics firm founded by Hayao Miyazaki.

This followed OpenAI’s latest upgrade to ChatGPT. The release substantially improved ChatGPT’s picture technology capabilities, allowing users to create compelling Ghibli-style images in mere moments. It has been considerably common – so much so, in truth, that the program crashed credited to consumer demand.

Generative artificial intelligence ( AI ) systems such as ChatGPT are best understood as” style engines”. And what we are seeing today is these techniques offering consumers more efficiency and power than ever before.

But this is also raising wholly new inquiries about copyright and artistic equity.

How the fresh ChatGPT makes graphics

Relational AI programs work by producing outcomes in response to consumer causes, including prompts to produce images.

Earlier generations of AI picture generators used propagation models. These versions gradually refine strange, noisy information into a clear image. But the latest upgrade to ChatGPT uses what’s known as an “autoregressive algorithm”.

This algorithm treats pictures more like speech, breaking them down into” currencies”. Just as ChatGPT predicts the most good words in a word, it can now identify different visual elements in an image differently.

This verification enables the engine to better independent specific features of an image – and their relationship with words in a fast. As a result, ChatGPT is more effectively generate images from specific consumer prompts than previous generations of picture generators. It can remove or modify certain features while preserving the rest of the picture, and it improves the long-fraught method of generating accurate text in images.

A particularly strong benefits of generating images inside a huge language model is the ability to pick on all the information already encoded in the program. This means clients don’t need to explain every aspect of an picture in painstaking detail. They can simply refer to themes like as Studio Ghibli and the AI understands the research.

The new Studio Ghibli craze began with OpenAI itself, before spreading among Silicon Valley software designers and then even governments and officials – including seemingly improbable functions such as the White House creating a Ghiblified picture of a crying lady being deported and the American government promoting Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s tale of a” New India”.

Understanding AI as ‘ style engines’

Generative AI systems don’t store information in any traditional sense. Instead they encode text, facts, or image fragments as patterns – or” styles” – within their neural networks.

Trained on vast amounts of data, AI models learn to recognize patterns at multiple levels. Lower network layers might capture basic features such as word relationships or visual textures. Higher layers encode more complex concepts or visual elements.

This means everything – objects, properties, writing genres, professional voices – gets transformed into styles. When AI learns about Miyazaki’s work, it’s not storing actual Studio Ghibli frames ( though image generators may sometimes produce close imitations of input images ). Instead, it’s encoding” Ghibli-ness” as a mathematical pattern – a style that can be applied to new images.

The same happens with bananas, cats or corporate emails. The AI learns “banana-ness”,” cat-ness” or” corporate email-ness” – patterns that define what makes something recognizably a banana, a cat or a professional communication.

The encoding and transfer of styles has for a long time been an express goal in visual AI. Now we have an image generator that achieves this with unprecedented scale and control.

This approach unlocks remarkable creative possibilities across both text and images. If everything is a style, then these styles can be freely combined and transferred. That’s why we refer to these systems as” style engines”. Try creating an armchair in the style of a cat, or in elvish style.

YouTube video

]embedded content]

The copyright controversy

While the ability to work with styles is what makes generative AI so powerful, it’s also at the heart of growing controversy. For many artists, there’s something deeply unsettling about seeing their distinctive artistic approaches reduced to just another” style” that anyone can apply with a simple text prompt.

Hayao Miyazaki. Photo: Wikipedia

Hayao Miyazaki has not publicly commented on the recent trend of people using ChatGPT to generate images in his world-famous animation style. But he has been critical of AI previously.

All of this also raises entirely new questions about copyright and creative ownership.

Traditionally, copyright law doesn’t protect styles – only specific expressions. You can’t copyright a music genre such as “ska” or an art movement such as “impressionism”.

This limitation exists for good reason. If someone could monopolize an entire style, it would stifle creative expression for everyone else.

But there’s a difference between general styles and highly distinctive ones that become almost synonymous with someone’s identity. When an AI can generate work “in the style of Greg Rutkowski” – a Polish artist whose name was reportedly used in over more than 93, 000 prompts in AI image generator Stable Diffusion – it potentially threatens both his livelihood and artistic legacy.

Some creators have already taken legal action.

In a case filed in late 2022, three artists formed a class to sue multiple AI companies, arguing that the firms ‘ image generators were trained on the artists ‘ original works without permission and now allow users to generate derivative works mimicking their distinctive styles.

As technology evolves faster than the law, work is under way on new legislation to try and balance technological innovation with protecting artists ‘ creative identities.

Whatever the outcome, these debates highlight the transformative nature of AI style engines – and the need to consider both their untapped creative potential and more nuanced protections of distinctive artistic styles.

Kai Riemer, ia Professor of Information technology and organisation at the University of Sydney and Sandra Peter is director of Sydney Executive Plus at the University of Sydney.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading