Interactive Programming at the Heart of the U.S.-China Conflict

It appears that the United States has moved beyond its focus on Chinese applications in the realm of social media and has broadened its scope to include interactive programming models referred to as artificial intelligence, as clearly demonstrated by the growing controversy surrounding the Deep Seek app.

Reports indicate that Republican Senator Josh Hawley, a lawyer, and politician, has proposed a bill to ban Deep Seek, accompanied by penalties including up to 20 years of imprisonment and fines reaching millions of dollars for its users, under the justification of safeguarding national security and protecting American businesses.

The United States has consistently employed the national security argument as a powerful tool in its technological conflict with China, as evidenced by its actions against Huawei and TikTok. Today, a similar situation is unfolding with Deep Seek, where the app is accused of data breaches and exploitation without substantial evidence. In other words, the proposed legislation appears to be a new instrument aimed at reinforcing American technological dominance, particularly in light of the swift rise of Deep Seek as a competitor to ChatGPT.

Therefore, I regard this proposal as indicative of a divisive strategy that undermines international collaboration in interactive programming and accelerates a technological race that may impede human innovation. Notably, when compared to the U.S. legal system, the proposed penalties are twice as severe as those for offenses such as rape or manslaughter in certain states. Moreover, the imposition of a fine of up to 100 million dollars on companies presupposes, without awaiting the outcomes of investigations into allegations of data theft from "OpenAI" and "Microsoft," that the use of Deep Seek is inherently criminal.

Rather than fostering innovation among American companies, Washington is turning to repressive legislation as a means to eliminate competitors, particularly given that investigations into "Deep Seek" have not yet provided any definitive evidence of wrongdoing. Nonetheless, Congress is moving swiftly to impose sanctions, prompting concerns about the motivations behind this action and its fairness.

What is concerning about this U.S. campaign is the evident double standard in addressing issues related to data theft. In recent years, American corporations such as Facebook, Google, and Microsoft have repeatedly engaged in the collection and exploitation of user data through questionable means, whether for marketing or other purposes. Furthermore, we cannot overlook the recent revelations by The Washington Post, which disclosed that Google supplied the Israeli military with advanced artificial intelligence technologies in the early stages of the assault on Gaza. Despite these actions, we have yet to witness the imposition of stringent laws or severe penalties against these companies.

The threat posed by such a protectionist mindset does not reside in the immediate effects of the proposed legislation but in its far-reaching implications for international relations.

Beijing may retaliate with comparable actions against American companies at a time when global cooperation is essential to tackle significant challenges, such as climate change and pandemics. In this regard, modern technologies risk becoming instruments of conflict, rather than fostering openness and collaboration.

In conclusion, I would say that Beijing has realized that the future lies in interactive programming, and thus, it has made substantial investments in developing its technologies, while Washington focused on imposing sanctions.

In conclusion, it can be said that Beijing has recognized that the future lies in interactive programming, leading it to make significant investments in the development of its own technologies, while Washington has focused on the imposition of sanctions.

Talal Abu-Ghazaleh