COVER STORY • 1

Roundtable with Dr. Yutaka Matsuo, Akiko Murakami, Chizuru Suga & Masakazu Toyoda(April 4, 2024)

I

s AI a Friend or Foe of
Humans?

By Japan SPOTLIGHT
Participants: Dr. Yutaka Matsuo, Professor at the School of Engineering, University of Tokyo
Akiko Murakami, Executive Director, Japan AI Safety Institute (AISI)
Chizuru Suga, Director, Digital Economy Division, Commerce and Information Policy Bureau,
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI)
Moderator: Masakazu Toyoda, Chairman & CEO, Japan Economic Foundation (JEF)

Dr. Yutaka Matsuo

Akiko Murakami

Introduction
Toyoda: As a specific example of generative AI, the chatbot ChatGPT
has been publicly acknowledged and is said to be a great invention
comparable to that of the internal combustion engine or the Internet
due to its great convenience, and it is said that the fourth AI boom
has been arriving. While it can not only answer various questions,but also write scenarios and easily create composite films, some saythat this could bring about a crisis for human civilization and that it isa devilish invention comparable to a “nuclear bomb”. Others say that
it will take away people’s jobs, provide false information, create
confusion at elections, and possibly even cause wars. New
technologies have advantages and disadvantages, and I think there isa loud call for certain regulations to strike a balance between the two.
So what kind of regulations are appropriate? Although theinvention of the automobile has greatly increased convenience as ameans of transportation, it can also cause traffic accidents and takehuman lives. No one doubts the need for traffic regulations. Overregulation hinders the further development of technology, while
under-regulation leads to chaos. We understand that the “Hiroshima
AI Process”, which Japan played a key role in formulating, aims to
8 Japan SPOTLIGHT • May / June 2024

Chizuru Suga

Masakazu Toyoda

achieve “safe, secure, and reliable AI”. Will Japanese companies
remain users or contribute as developers in the AI boom? So far, I
feel that the contribution of Japanese companies in the post-Internet
era is unfortunately limited. Why is that so? Large companies arebound by past successes and seem timid about the risk of change.
On the other hand, some say that the reason why Japan has lacked
an environment conducive to nurturing startups is because of thelimited mobility of labor. It is said that talented people tend to fail toutilize their competency fully in large companies where the lifetime
employment system and seniority system remain dominant. The
Japanese government is also beginning to focus on supporting
startup companies. Will Japanese companies be able to contribute to
the development of AI as developers in the AI boom?
International collaboration on AI development and utilization is
also said to be making progress, and a US-Japan joint researchframework on AI development was announced during JapanesePrime Minister Fumio Kishida’s visit to the United States in April
2024.
The opportunities and challenges posed by the AI boom for Japanare many, and today we have gathered three experts to discuss theseissues. Joining us will be Dr. Yutaka Matsuo, professor at the Schoolhttps://www.jef.or.jp/journal/

of Engineering, the University of Tokyo, a developer of AI andchairman of the government of Japan’s AI Strategy Council, which
compiled the Hiroshima AI Process; Ms. Akiko Murakami who, while
being a proponent of the use of AI as chief digital officer of Sompo
Japan Insurance, Inc., a large non-life Japanese insurance company,
has also been looking at the safety side of AI as the executive
director of the Japan AI Safety Institute (AISI) since February 2024;
and Ms. Chizuru Suga, director of the Digital Economy Division of
the Commerce and Information Policy Bureau at the Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), who is in charge of policy. So
let’s begin our discussion.

Benefits of AI
Toyoda: First, the merits of AI. I would like to hear from each of thethree experts about the “technological singularity” at which AI
surpasses human intelligence, including what this means forhumanity and for Japan in particular. I would like to start with Dr.
Matsuo, who is an educator and developer.
Matsuo: I do not think it is necessarily a good idea to start fromtechnological singularity, as it would be somewhat divergent. First ofall, there are many areas where the current generative AI technology
can be used industrially and where industrial productivity can be
improved, so I think it is important to make sure that in such areas
the use of AI is advanced and AI fully utilized. There is no doubt thatthe technology will spread throughout society in the span of five, 10
or 20 years, and I believe there will be several more major
breakthroughs in the level of the technology.
Murakami: From the corporate side, the technology is advancing
very quickly, and there is a risk of a technological singularity in the
future, but at this point I believe that AI has more advantages forcompanies than disadvantages. In particular, it is certain that thelabor force will decrease in the future, and in order to compensate
for this shortage I think it will be necessary to supplement theworkforce in a technological way. At that time, it will no longer bepossible to cover only simple tasks by mechanically delegating them,as has been the case up to now. I think it is very important to coverlabor other than simple tasks with advanced AI technology.
On the other hand, AI technology nowadays seems on the surface
to be usable by everyone, but there is still a bit of a gap in order to
put it into practice, and I think there is a big division between
companies that can do it and those that cannot. This is where thedifference in competitiveness comes into play, and I think it poses athreat to the industry.

Suga: I think the best way to understand AI is that a new engine has
been developed that will support what we want to do. I have heardthat when printing technology first appeared in ancient society, someexperts of the time expressed concern that the sudden introductionof such technology into the world of oral tradition would corrupt
human beings and that printing technology would surpass humanmemory. In reality, humans have not become creatures that do notmemorize, and the technology of printing has been of great use tohuman society, including expanding human capabilities andpreserving unmemorable amounts of data in various forms for the
future.
When new and disruptive innovations appear in society, people
have all sorts of imaginative fears and grand dreams. However, theimportant thing is how to incorporate them into business as usual.
What is important is what strategies will be adopted, both for thecompany and for the country, based on the assumption that thecompeting companies and countries will also be trying desperately tomaster the technology.

Disadvantages of AI
Toyoda: I would like to ask you to talk about the disadvantages of AI.
It may be too early to discuss demerits at this stage, but I would liketo hear about them from Ms. Murakami, who is in charge of bothpromotion and safety assurance.
Murakami: I think this is true for all technologies, not just AI. I could
list as many bad points as I want to. With AI, for example, it is often
said that there is a risk that news and news images produced by agenerative AI may induce untruths, or that the company cannot fully
control the predictions of the output produced by generative AI, so it
may lie and be subject to corporate liability, I suspect. Also, thequestion arises who would be responsible for an accident that could
result in loss of human life, such as with automated driving. I thinkthe list of risks is really endless.
However, there are significant advantages in complementing labor
shortages or expanding human activities, so not using AI may initself be a risk for both companies and individuals’ economic
activities. I believe that not using AI because you are afraid of thedisadvantages while others are using it is in itself a risk of fallingbehind the competition.
Humans have the greatest fear of what they do not understand,and they tend to estimate the risk as being greater than it really is.
Therefore, I think it is important to organize where risks are
manifested and what needs to be addressed, and to create anenvironment in which this information can be understood by people
who are not cutting-edge engineers or researchers.
Japan SPOTLIGHT • May / June 20249

Toyoda: Some have voiced serious concerns from the perspective of
employment, social stability, or security. As someone in charge ofpolicy, I would like to ask Ms. Suga to tell us about this. And afterthat Dr. Matsuo, as a developer and an educator.
Suga: Since everyone is currently experimenting with generative AI
globally at the same time, it is very important to learn from eachother what kinds of risks others have identified and faced, in addition
to the risks that can be recognized by using systems on one’s own.
We share risk information with various companies in Japan and also
globally. In other words, I believe that risk recognition and handlingshould be addressed in a coordinated manner as much as possible,
both among companies and among nations. That is why, as acountry, we are taking the initiative and making efforts to create aplatform for companies to share risk information, or to issue
guidelines for sharing risk information and coping methods.
Matsuo: I think there are various forms of risk that need to beaddressed. From a technical point of view, for example, we need tomake it clearer what kind of data we are learning from, and there aremany technical issues such as how to control and put in a guardrail
system to prevent inappropriate output that could lead to danger ordiscrimination, and so on. I think we need to conduct research anddevelopment on such issues.

Appropriate Regulation & GovernanceToyoda: I think this is exactly the kind of research that needs to bedone, but then I would like to ask what kind of regulation is good andhow should it be governed? I think the government’s position is topromote AI from the perspective of maximizing benefits andminimizing risks, but what is generally said is that Japan is relatively
reluctant to regulate and is steering clear of excessive regulation. I
would like to hear the government’s position from Ms. Suga, who isin charge of policy.
Recently, newspapers have reported that the European Union has
introduced a bill to comprehensively regulate AI. On the other hand,
the Japanese government has compiled the Hiroshima AI Process. I
would like to ask you to introduce the contents of each of them andtalk about how the Japanese government thinks about governance.
Suga: Regarding governance, Japan was chairing the G7 Summit in
2023 when generative AI suddenly became a hot topic, and Prime
Minister Kishida proposed the Hiroshima AI Process as his initiative.
This has enabled Japan to acquire an overview of various
information on each nation’s trials and errors in regulations. This
was thanks to the accumulation of contributions made by the
10 Japan SPOTLIGHT • May / June 2024

Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC) and others to
global discussions on AI to date, which helped Japan gain the trustof other countries in presiding over sensitive discussions as thechairing country.
While each country has its own political agenda, it is significant
that while reaching a consensus on the fundamental scheme of AI
governance to be shared by the G7 in dealing with various
arguments, the G7, which is closest to the developers of AI and thelargest user of AI, agreed on a direction for using AI with the same
sense of values.
In parallel with the Hiroshima AI Process, we also issued AI
business operator guidelines in Japan. These are a single set of
guidelines that integrate and substantially update those which had
been issued by the MIC and the Ministry of Economy, Trade andIndustry (METI) from different perspectives on AI, in response to theemergence of a new and powerful AI called generative AI.
Considering the discussions in the Hiroshima AI Process, we havecreated a large network of experts from industry and academia inJapan, and have had numerous dialogues with them, taking care toshow the most advanced risk recognition and the most sophisticatedways to deal with the risks.
In preparing these guidelines, more than 100 experts withknowledge of generative AI were invited to join the same mailing list,
and a number of discussions among those experts have been heldon the basis of the shared information with the joint secretariat of the
MIC and METI. The AI Business Operator Guidelines were first tabled
for discussion at the AI Strategy Council, chaired by Dr. Matsuo, atthe end of 2023, and a finalized version was released in April 2024,
taking into account further public comments.
For a country where there are not so many companies on the
cutting edge of development, I think we have done well by
supplementing the amount of information we have input.
Toyoda: As the chairman of the Strategy Council, Dr. Matsuo,
looking at the two positions of Japan and the EU, how do you see thetwo compared from a developer’s point of view?
Matsuo: In general, I think Japan’s response to AI is very impressive.
The EU has taken a strong regulatory position, and with both the US
and the United Kingdom having different agendas, I think Japan is in
a very good position to make its presence felt. With the EU taking astrong regulatory position and the US focusing on innovation, I think
Japan and the UK are striking a balance. Also, while each country
has a strong political appeal aspect to its AI policy, we have to think
about how to really make it work for the economy. In this sense, I
think Japan is doing very well now.

Toyoda: I would like to ask Ms. Murakami to tell us what theappropriate regulations should be from the standpoint of a company
and from the standpoint of a person whose job is to ensure safety.
You mentioned that Japan is taking a position between the US andthe EU.
Murakami: First, speaking from a corporate perspective, while notusing AI is becoming a risk, I believe that Japanese companies are
struggling with how to use AI for economic development, as not allcompanies can afford to have AI engineers.
A situation in which people are allowed to do things completely
freely may, on the contrary, encourage fear. Therefore, if there aresome guidelines, companies can use AI with peace of mind, because
it will indicate that it is not safe to go beyond a certain point. Thiscan be compared to the installation of guardrails.
I think it is advantageous for companies promoting AI to be able tolook at their risks not only from their own perspective, but also froma larger global perspective. AI has no borders. Therefore, both user
companies and companies that provide technology may have tospend time researching regulations overseas while Japanesecompanies should also expand globally. It would be easier forcompanies to do business by centralizing that research rather thanhaving individual companies do it.
Speaking as the executive director of AISI, I too believe that Japanis in a very good position, as you both have mentioned. We will not
move to major regulations that would stop innovation while fulfilling
guardrails for companies to utilize. In my personal opinion, there is atime gap between when a law is issued and when it is enforced, so if
regulations are too inflexible, it will be very difficult to catch up withmodern technology. I think the ideal situation is not a law, but rather
guidelines showing that the government thinks this way at this point
in time, and which are then updated it in a timely manner as
technology changes. Then both business and academia can provide
input for the government on the current situation, so that we can all
evolve together.
AISI is working with national ministries and agencies to unify theguidelines, and we are also planning to have many companies that
promote innovation participate in the project, so we would like toinclude input from these companies. In addition to the AISI in the UK
and the US, we will also collaborate with organizations in othercountries to provide information equivalent to a guardrail, so thatoverseas developments can be fed back to those businesses that willdevelop the Japanese economy.

Competitiveness of Japanese Companies
Toyoda: I think the Japanese ideas that you have mentioned willprobably be very helpful to many countries. Next, I would like to ask
you about the competitiveness of Japanese companies. It is often
said that Japan is behind in the development of information services.
I would like to ask Dr. Matsuo, who has been leading the way interms of AI development and use in Japan, what we should think
about the limitations of Japanese companies’ activities from the firstto the third AI boom to date. Why are they and how we can expect
them to be active in the fourth boom this time around?
Matsuo: The premise is that Japan is completely behind the rest of
the world in the digital field. Most of the products and services we
use are made overseas: Zoom is a US startup, Word and PowerPoint
are from Microsoft, and Mac is from Apple, etc. AI is a new digitaltechnology, so we are starting from a place where overseas
companies are strong and Japan is not in a position to compete. We
need to recognize this starting point.
In this context, I believe we are fighting the good fight when it
comes to generative AI. Appropriate measures are being taken, andwhile the gap has not narrowed, we are not far behind, and the useof generative AI is progressing in Japan. In terms of development,even though the computational resources are not as strong as thoseof other companies, a large number of developers are working on thedevelopment of AI, and at the same time they are taking steps tostrengthen their computational resources, and in this sense they arecontinuing to make the best moves.
The winners in this game will build on their current
competitiveness so as to create the next competitive edge. But thestrategy of the loser, I think, will be to continue to make the best
moves and wait for some opportunity to present itself. I believe thatJapan is continuing to make its best moves now, and depending on
the situation, when the US administration may change, there may
come another time when Japanese companies will be able to growglobally.
Toyoda: I would like to know what Ms. Murakami thinks from thestandpoint of user companies and their competitiveness in terms ofdevelopment and utilization.
Murakami: I also think it is true that Japan is a little behind in thedigital area as Dr. Matsuo just mentioned. On the other hand, it is in
the area of AI that Japanese researchers and developers have madetheir presence felt. I have wondered why this is.
I was in R&D at a global company in my previous position, andcompared to other research fields, Japanese people were very active
and had a strong presence in the language field. Americancompanies are mainly English-speaking. In the case of image andvoice, for example, speech recognition is a little different, but when it
Japan SPOTLIGHT • May / June 202411

comes to semantic understanding, you cannot develop globally
without thinking about multilingualism. However, inevitably, native
English-speaking engineers tend to do jobs only in English.
Meanwhile, Japanese people need to think about doing jobs in both
English and Japanese first, not only Japanese. Then, when going
multilingual, it will be easier to go to other languages if you
understand the difference between English and Japanese. In thissense, I personally believe that Japanese companies have the ability
to consider the risk of only doing English from the beginning, which I
believe is where Japan can win.
On the other hand, this can also be a risk. When using AI,
Japanese companies must always use Japanese, and the fact is thatmost Japanese users, even for work within their companies, have a
hard time accepting tools in English, and therefore cannot use themost advanced in the world. This is how I think there is also adrawback. The fact that Japan is not an English-speaking country
could be a strength in terms of competitiveness. But at the sametime, there are many Japanese who are not very good at English,
which is another area of concern regarding competitiveness.
However, when I look at young Japanese people now, they are notat all afraid of reading English. This is because the technology cantranslate automatically. Considering the fact that they are able to reada volume of literature in English that was completely unthinkable
when I was young, the English barrier has been greatly reduced.
When developing AI, Japan, which is what we call a linguistic
minority in the world, will have opportunities to find the best moves.

also a matter of crisis. Large companies often lament the lack ofdigital talent or AI talent in the country, but such people do not go tolarge companies because they do not get due recognition. On theother hand, the reality is that those people, because they are instartups, are having a very hard time acquiring resources that would
normally be easily available to larger companies. I often wish we
could see who has the most essential understanding of the newtechnology of generative AI and who can serve as a pilot, regardlessof age or other attributes. Some of the younger people who are doing
well in startups are the ones I wish could be entrusted to head large
divisions of a company.
It is a shame that there are both companies that have theresources but cannot entrust them to young people, and people whohave the motivation and ability but must struggle to obtain sufficient
resources.

International Cooperation in Policy

Toyoda: I would like to ask Ms. Suga what are your thoughts on thecompetitiveness of Japanese companies?

Toyoda: METI is now beginning to support startup companies, and I
hope that we can reconcile these two dilemmas that Ms. Suga
mentioned.
As the last part of our discussion, I would like to ask howinternational cooperation on policies should be positioned, andwhether there is any meaning to international cooperation in order tocatch up. First of all, Ms. Murakami, please tell us how international
cooperation can be positioned for the success of Japanesecompanies in terms of utilization, and what you would like to see thegovernment do, or what you think companies should know on theirown.

Suga: I think all countries other than the US and China are lagging
behind. In digital and platform services, the hegemonic countries arestill strong, but Japan is quite competitive in many other industries.
So I think there is a strong tendency to view Japan as a failure
because it is struggling in digital, but in the digital field Japan israther fighting the good fight in a difficult situation. I think this is acorrect assessment.
Although they are fighting the good fight, many Japanesecompanies seem to be trying to do everything on their own out of a
big-company mindset in order to be strong in the domestic market.
If we understand that Japan is in a position where it could become asmall country or a country that does not have much, the optimal
strategy will change. I think it would be good to see more moves
toward defining the field in which we should compete by broadening
the scope of our cooperation with domestic as well as international
companies.
I think the relationship between startups and large companies is

Murakami: Borders are disappearing both for companies that use AI
to provide services and AI itself as an innovation. Both are expanding
globally. Many people in Japan think that they are not good at global
expansion, but in fact there are many Japanese companies that arequite active on a global scale, even outside of the well-known
companies we are familiar with.
While such companies provide services around the world, theregulations in each country are changing by the minute. We believethat it would be a waste of resources for individual companies tokeep track of all of these regulations, even the differences between
soft law and hard law, which are changing every minute. In order toupdate the latest information quickly, I think it would be helpful if
Japan as a whole cooperates so that companies provide theJapanese government with the knowledge they have gained and theJapanese government redistributes this knowledge to all thecompanies. Such mutual support would lead to success forJapanese companies.

12 Japan SPOTLIGHT • May / June 2024

I believe that there are competitive and non-competitive areas withregard to corporate activities. Since technology itself is a competitive
area for companies, I do not think it is necessary to give out thesubstance of technology, but information on the situation in eachcountry to deploy it should be shared among companies throughcooperation, and in order to protect what Japan should protect,
information in non-competitive areas should be shared among
companies and cooperation between companies and the government
should be promoted. I believe this would lead to the development ofJapan’s economy and the success of Japanese companies.
Now, comparing Japanese and foreign companies, Japanesecompanies are very bad at cooperating in non-competitive areas. I
used to work for IBM, and I was surprised to find that Americancompanies are not afraid to exchange information with their rivals in
non-competitive areas, cooperate with each other, and collaborate
with each other in appealing to the government. However, Japanesecompanies are often reluctant to disclose information to othercompanies to the extent that they are not in the competitive area. If
Japanese companies can improve on this, I believe they will be able
to make their presence felt in the world.
Toyoda: I would like to ask Dr. Matsuo to share his thoughts onwhether there are any policies that are necessary for startup
companies from the perspective of development.
Matsuo: In Japanese companies, the people in charge of various
areas do not take responsibility for themselves. This occasionallyends up in failure to achieve innovation. For example, there is a
discussion around me right now about whether Singapore’s
copyright law would apply to the use of cloud computing for AI
learning, when the cloud server itself is physically located in
Singapore. There is an argument that this would be subject toSingapore copyright law. If that is the case, then we are talking about
whether all companies using the cloud are subject to the laws ofeach country, and which may apply. It is just a possibility, and there
is almost no actual risk of that happening, but when you are told
that, it makes things harder for the person in charge.
Then, to give another example, there is the question of whether
large-scale language models (LLMs) trained with personal
information are actually personal information. If it is personal
information, the law requires that it must be treated as such, but nomatter how removed, the data set may still contain personal
information. When asked if all LLMs created must be treated as
personal information, the legal experts can only say that this is apossibility. Then in the end, nothing can be done.
It is very important to set a precedent for such a situation andhave a legal expert comment in such a way that each person in

charge does not have to take responsibility; for example, that such a
decision can be made in such a case, or that a precedent has been
set for a project being conducted in the country. I think it isimportant to arrange it so that each person in charge does not haveto take responsibility for any project. I would like the government totackle this.

Keywords for the Future of AI
Toyoda: In terms of promoting international cooperation, I thoughtthat it may indeed be important to share the arrangement of risks inareas beyond national borders.
Finally, I would like to ask all of you to say a few key words about
what is important to link the development and use of AI to thedevelopment of the Japanese economy.
Matsuo: I think the current AI policy situation is very good, and I
think that means we will continue to move forward.
Murakami: I think it is important for companies to cooperate in noncompetitive areas. I believe that cooperation is needed for eachcompany or individual to get through this AI era, as we all have to
get through it together.
Suga: I am very much looking forward to the AI Safety Institute, of
which Ms. Murakami has agreed to be the first executive director, as
I think it has the potential to become a very important and interesting
framework among the moves Japan has made. Dr. Matsuo is also
going to support the institute, which has the potential to become acenter for the smartest possible designs by working together in acoordinated manner in the name of “AI safety”.
Toyoda: Thank you very much for your time. I wish you all the bestand look forward to working with you in the future.

Written and translated by Naoyuki Haraoka, editor-in-chief of JapanSPOTLIGHT, with the cooperation of Tape Rewrite Co.

Japan SPOTLIGHT • May / June 202413