The European Union’s AI Act represents a pioneering step in the regulation of artificial intelligence, marking the first comprehensive legal framework for AI globally. Proposed by the European Commission in April 2021, the Act is set to establish a precedent in the ethical and responsible development of AI technologies. However, this groundbreaking legislation has sparked a mix of praise and criticism, reflecting the complex nature of artificial intelligence governance.
The EU AI Act is approved today in a meeting is a landmark legal framework for artificial intelligence, aiming to set global standards for AI development and use. The Act’s goals are ambitious, targeting the responsible and ethical use of AI. It is lauded for its proactive stance in addressing AI’s challenges and setting a precedent for global regulation.
Key features of the EU AI Act
Risk-based approach: Adopting a risk-based approach, the AI Act categorizes AI applications based on their risk level. This classification ranges from prohibited practices (very high risk) to minimal risk activities.
Business-oriented rules: A notable aspect is its focus on economic considerations, balancing business interests with ethical concerns. The Act is seen as prioritizing economic over ethical dimensions in AI development.
Pros of the AI Act
Comprehensive regulatory framework: The Act stands as the first international regulatory framework for AI, directly applicable across all EU member states.
Encouraging innovation and safety: Proponents argue that the Act’s careful risk assessment and proportionality principles strike a balance between fostering innovation and protecting society.
Cons and challenges
Potential stifling of innovation: Critics contend that the Act’s restrictive approach could hinder AI innovation and limit its potential benefits. Concerns include stringent risk classifications and burdensome compliance requirements, especially for smaller AI developers.
Complexity for businesses: The Regulation imposes a range of obligations on AI usage, encompassing precise documentary requirements, controls, and checks, potentially imposing considerable costs, especially on SMEs.
Transparency and usage declaration: High-risk AI applications require mandatory transparency declarations, which could pose challenges in certain business sectors.
International debate and divergence: The Act significantly diverges from the approaches taken by major AI players like the U.S. and China, potentially creating a divergence in the global business landscape.
Future considerations and implementation
The Act is still under negotiation among the European Council, Parliament, and Commission. Key areas of debate include AI use for biometric surveillance and the definition of high-risk AI. Companies, including foundation model providers like OpenAI and DeepMind, face challenges in aligning with the Act’s requirements, such as uneven reporting of energy use and inadequate risk mitigation disclosure.
The draft Act currently lacks considerations for model use in different contexts and fails to address aspects of the AI supply chain, like dataset construction and training methods.
Companies need more clarity in areas like transparency, model access, and impact assessments to comply with the Act’s regulations.
The EU Act’s passage might influence U.S. AI regulations, with companies reluctant to adapt to two different sets of rules for different markets. There is a need for alignment in global AI regulation standards.
