Abstract:Under its proposed Artificial Intelligence Act (‘AIA’), the European Union seeks to develop harmonised standards involving abstract normative concepts such transparency, fairness, and accountability. Applying such concepts inevitably requires answering hard normative questions. Considering this challenge, we argue that there are three possible pathways for future standardisation under the AIA. First, European standard-setting organisations (‘SSOs’) could answer hard normative questions themselves. This approach would raise concerns about its democratic legitimacy. Standardisation is a technical discourse and tends to exclude non-expert stakeholders and the public at large. Second, instead of passing their own normative judgments, SSOs could track the normative consensus they find available. By analysing the standard-setting history of one major SSO, we show that such consensus tracking has historically been its pathway of choice. If standardisation under the AIA took the same route, we demonstrate how this would lead to a false sense of safety as the process is not infallible. Consensus tracking would furthermore push the need to solve unavoidable normative problems down the line. Instead of regulators, AI developers and/or users could define what, for example, fairness requires. By the institutional design of its AIA, the European Commission would have essentially kicked the ‘AI Ethics’ can down the road. We thus suggest a third pathway which aims to avoid the pitfalls of the previous two: SSOs should create standards which require “ethical disclosure by default.” These standards will specify minimum technical testing, documentation, and public reporting requirements to shift ethical decision-making to local stakeholders and limit provider discretion in answering hard normative questions in the development of AI products and services. Our proposed pathway is about putting the right information in the hands of the people with the legitimacy to make complex normative decisions at a local, context-sensitive level.

The Role of AI Safety Institutes in Contributing to International Standards for Frontier AI Safety

Understanding the First Wave of AI Safety Institutes: Characteristics, Functions, and Challenges

International Institutions for Advanced AI

The potential functions of an international institution for AI safety. Insights from adjacent policy areas and recent trends

Standardization Trends on Safety and Trustworthiness Technology for Advanced AI

Foundations for the future: institution building for the purpose of artificial intelligence governance

Regulating artificial intelligence: Proposal for a global solution

A Safe Harbor for AI Evaluation and Red Teaming

Developing and Deploying Industry Standards for Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED): Challenges, Strategies, and Future Directions

Safetywashing: Do AI Safety Benchmarks Actually Measure Safety Progress?

Bridging the Global Divide in AI Regulation: A Proposal for a Contextual, Coherent, and Commensurable Framework

Three pathways for standardisation and ethical disclosure by default under the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act

Artificial Intelligence Strategies for National Security and Safety Standards

A Case for AI Safety via Law

Voluntary safety commitments provide an escape from over-regulation in AI development

Frontier AI Regulation: Managing Emerging Risks to Public Safety

AI Safety: Necessary, but insufficient and possibly problematic

An International Consortium for Evaluations of Societal-Scale Risks from Advanced AI

AI for Science:AI enabled scientific facility transforms fundamental research

From Principles to Rules: A Regulatory Approach for Frontier AI

Certified Safe: A Schematic for Approval Regulation of Frontier AI