紐時賞析／該封鎖中國AI嗎？矽谷陷分歧

A.I. Strategy Is Dividing Silicon Valley

該封鎖中國AI嗎？矽谷陷分歧

For years, a philosophical divide over how artificial intelligence software should be created has split Silicon Valley technologists.

多年以來，矽谷科技圈對於人工智慧軟體到底該怎麼開發，一直有很深的路線之爭。

Last week, that argument reached a boiling point.

上周，相關爭論終於白熱化。

On one side are leading AI companies like Anthropic and OpenAI, which claim that AI models are too dangerous to be developed in the open and must be tightly controlled — by businesses like themselves — for safety. On the other is the rest of the tech industry, including giants like Microsoft and Nvidia, which contend that so-called open-source AI models must remain open for people to further develop technologies and build new businesses.

陣營的一方是Anthropic 和OpenAI這類領先的AI 公司，他們認為AI模型太危險了，不能公開開發，必須由像他們這樣的企業嚴格控管，才能確保安全。另一邊則是科技產業的其他玩家，包括微軟、輝達這些大廠，他們主張開源AI模型一定要保持開放，讓大家可以繼續開發技術、並催生新事業。

Those camps have started publicly clashing. On Friday, Jensen Huang, Nvidia’s CEO, said in his first-ever post to X that “the world needs both frontier closed models and frontier open models.” Nine minutes later, Satya Nadella, Microsoft’s CEO, posted that open-source software was “essential to a healthy AI ecosystem.” Both signed a letter supporting open source, which was also signed by executives at Meta, Palantir and IBM.

兩大陣營已經公開槓上了。周五，輝達執行長黃仁勳在X上發了第一則貼文，寫道「世界需要最先進的封閉模型，也需要最先進的開源模型」。9分鐘後，微軟執行長納德拉也發文說，開源軟體「對健全的AI生態系至關重要」。兩人都簽署了支持開源的聯名信，連署者還包括Meta、Palantir和 IBM的高層。

The escalating fight stems from China’s rapid progress in open-source AI models, which are freely available to use and build on. In recent weeks, two Chinese AI startups, Z.ai and Moonshot AI, have released models that rival those from Anthropic and other American labs. Anthropic and OpenAI have claimed that Chinese companies built the models by improperly harvesting data from their AI systems, which they said should not be allowed.

這場愈演愈烈的爭執，主要是因為中國在開源AI模型上進展很快——這類模型可以免費使用、也能自由再開發。近幾周，兩家中國AI新創Z.ai和Moonshot AI推出的模型，已經能跟Anthropic及其他美國實驗室產出的產品一較高下。Anthropic和OpenAI則指控，中國公司是不當擷取他們AI系統的資料，才做出這些模型，並認為這種作法不應該被允許。

On Wednesday, Bessent said the administration had considered imposing sanctions on Chinese companies that steal intellectual property from American firms. “Open source is not open season on American IP,” he said.

貝森特周三表示，政府已考慮對竊取美國企業智慧財產權的中國公司實施制裁。他說：「開源不代表可以對美國智財權予取予求。」

Open-source proponents have argued that sharing information leads to improvements that make software safer and more reliable, while more rapidly spurring innovation. Opponents maintain that software is costly to develop, and that giving it away is just bad business.

開源支持者認為，分享資訊能讓軟體變得更安全、更可靠，同時更快推動創新。反對者則說，軟體開發成本很高，直接免費釋出根本是糟糕的生意。

Today, much of the modern internet runs on open-source technologies, as do some of the most widely used computer systems, like Google’s Android operating system.

如今，現代網際網路的大部分架構都在開源技術上運作，連同許多最普及的電腦系統也是如此，例如 Google的Android作業系統即是。

文／Mike Isaac, Kate Conger, Ana Swanson and Meaghan Tobin，譯／國際中心

說文解字看新聞

【張佑生】

作者用“philosophical divide”（理念／哲學分歧），而不是一般的 “disagreement”（意見不合）或“business conflict”（商業利益衝突），一個原因是一般的商業爭執往往涉及專利、價格或市占率；但AI的開源與閉源之爭，涉及的是對「技術本質與社會責任」的根本價值觀，兩種立場背後各自有一套道德哲學（Ethics & Philosophy），誰也無法單純用「對與錯」說服對方。

如果寫“business argument”或“tech dispute”，聽起來只像2家公司在搶生意；但寫“philosophical divide”，則將層次拉高到：這是一場關乎「人類未來該如何與AI共存」的價值觀大決戰。這樣的用詞能讓讀者立刻意識到，這不是普通的科技新聞，而是一場深遠影響科技與政策發展的方向之爭。

Harvest原意為「收割／採收」，在數據與科技領域常用於取代collect（收集），專指「大規模、系統性地撈取／擷取數據」。未經授權爬取資料，例如以模型輸出訓練另一個模型，即所謂的蒸餾／Distillation。同義進階詞包括：scrape data（爬取資料）、siphon data（抽取／虹吸資料）。