Abstract:As a powerful and rapidly advancing dual-use technology, AI offers both immense benefits and worrisome risks. In response, governing bodies around the world are developing a range of regulatory AI laws and policies. This paper compares three distinct approaches taken by the EU, China and the US. Within the US, we explore AI regulation at both the federal and state level, with a focus on California's pending Senate Bill 1047. Each regulatory system reflects distinct cultural, political and economic perspectives. Each also highlights differing regional perspectives on regulatory risk-benefit tradeoffs, with divergent judgments on the balance between safety versus innovation and cooperation versus competition. Finally, differences between regulatory frameworks reflect contrastive stances in regards to trust in centralized authority versus trust in a more decentralized free market of self-interested stakeholders. Taken together, these varied approaches to AI innovation and regulation influence each other, the broader international community, and the future of AI regulation.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The paper attempts to address the issue of different approaches to artificial intelligence (AI) regulation worldwide and their impacts. Specifically, it compares the three different strategies of the European Union, China, and the United States in AI regulation, exploring how these strategies reflect their respective cultural, political, and economic backgrounds, as well as their trade-offs between risks and benefits. The paper also discusses the impact of these different regulatory frameworks on the international community and the possible directions for future global AI regulation.
### Main Issues:
1. **Different National Approaches to AI Regulation**:
- The European Union adopts a risk-based, top-down regulatory approach, emphasizing ethics, privacy protection, and social harmony.
- China combines both top-down and bottom-up approaches, emphasizing central government guidance and regulation while also encouraging local innovation and market competition.
- The United States takes a more market-driven approach, emphasizing the coordination of existing laws, regulatory agencies, and enforcement entities.
2. **Trade-offs Between Risks and Benefits**:
- Countries differ in their balance between safety and innovation, cooperation and competition. For example, the EU's strict regulation may inhibit innovation but better protect citizens' rights, while the US's lax regulation may promote innovation but also bring more security risks.
3. **International Impact**:
- These different regulatory approaches not only affect the AI development within their respective countries but also have a broad impact on the international community. For instance, the EU's AI Act could become a global standard, influencing legislation in other countries.
4. **Future Directions**:
- The paper explores possible future directions for AI regulation in various countries, including whether a more unified global regulatory framework is needed and how to promote innovation while ensuring safety.
Through these analyses, the paper aims to provide policymakers and researchers with a comprehensive perspective to better understand and address the challenges and opportunities brought by AI.