Interim Measures for Generative AI

Does using a large model internally bring us under these Measures?

What you may need to do

1. List every AI entry point open to the outside (website / app / mini program / interface)
2. Judge each entry point against whether it serves unspecified users in China
3. Keep a record for models used internally only, stating that they are not open to the public
4. Build a compliance ledger under these Measures for services already open to the public
5. Include interfaces sold externally in the list of open entry points

Provisions relied on

One-line conclusion

Interim Measures for the Administration of Generative AI Services regulates “services provided to the domestic public”, not the act of using a large model itself. The same model used internally to draft weekly reports or search a knowledge base is normally outside these Measures; once it is opened to unspecified users, it falls within scope.

Basis

Article 2, paragraph 1 provides that the use of generative AI technology to provide text, images, audio, video and other content to the public within the People's Republic of China is subject to these Measures. The anchor here is “provided to the domestic public”, not the form of the technology.

Article 2, paragraph 3 gives the reverse exclusion: where industry organisations, enterprises, education and research institutions, public cultural institutions and relevant professional institutions develop or apply generative AI technology without providing generative AI services to the domestic public, these Measures do not apply. In other words, developing for one's own use and not opening the service to the public is out of range.

Article 2, paragraph 2 adds a further layer: where the state has separate provisions on the use of generative AI services for news publishing, film and television production, literary and artistic creation and similar activities, those provisions prevail. Where those businesses are involved, the special rules apply alongside these Measures.

What you need to do

1. Go through the product entry points: website, app, mini program, official account, open interface, and mark each one as “public-facing” or “internal only”.
2. Judge by who can reach the service, not by call volume. If an unspecified third party can use it on its own and receive generated results, it is public-facing; if it is provided only to internal staff under accounts and is not open on the public internet, it is an internal application.
3. If an interface is provided externally (Article 22 treats “providing generative AI services by providing programmable interfaces and other means” as provision by a provider), that also counts as opening to the public; “we only sell an API” is not a reason to assume these Measures do not apply.
4. For anything judged to be an internal application, keep a record of the judgement: the access scope, the account system, and whether it is reachable from the public internet. The day the conclusion changes, the compliance duties must be re-assessed.

Common pitfalls

• Treating “free of charge” as a safe zone. Provision to the public does not presuppose a fee, and a freely open chatbot is in scope.
• Treating a “test environment” as exempt. If a test environment is reachable from the public internet and outsiders can register, it is in substance public-facing.
• Looking only at outbound services and not inbound ones. Where an overseas entity provides services into China, the disposal provisions of Article 20 apply separately.
• Where a product is both external and internal, treat it as external as a whole; it cannot be split proportionally to claim an exemption.

Common follow-up questions

If employees use a third-party large model to write documents, is that public-facing? No. Internal use by employees does not amount to providing a service to the domestic public, but input information protection, trade secrets and other duties remain subject to other laws.

If only a few partner companies use it, is that public-facing? Look at whether they can register and use it on their own. A closed service signed one-to-one that is not open to unspecified users normally does not count; if it can be activated self-service and any unspecified party can use it, it does.

Common follow-up questions

Only a few dozen internal employee accounts use it; does that count as public-facing?

No. If the accounts are closed inside the company and outsiders cannot register, it is an internal application and falls outside the scope of these Measures. But company material entered by employees remains subject to trade secret and personal information protection law.

If we turn the model into an API and sell it to another company, who performs the duties under these Measures?

Article 22 makes clear that an organisation or individual providing generative AI services by providing programmable interfaces and other means is also a service provider. The party selling the interface is the provider and shall perform the provider duties under these Measures.

If we open it free for the public to try, can we ignore it?

No. The scope does not depend on charging a fee; providing a service that generates text, images, audio, video and other content to the domestic public brings it under these Measures.

This entry belongs to the “China AI Compliance and Filing” cluster (42 entries in total): View all · Answers home