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.

capAI - A Procedure for Conducting Conformity Assessment of AI Systems in Line with the EU Artificial Intelligence Act

Conformity Assessments and Post-market Monitoring: A Guide to the Role of Auditing in the Proposed European AI Regulation

Standardizing AI - The Case of the European Commission's Proposal for an Artificial Intelligence Act

Compliance Cards: Automated EU AI Act Compliance Analyses amidst a Complex AI Supply Chain

Taking AI risks seriously: a new assessment model for the AI Act

The European Commission’s Proposal for an Artificial Intelligence Act—A Critical Assessment by Members of the Robotics and AI Law Society (RAILS)

Complying with the EU AI Act

A Robust Governance for the AI Act: AI Office, AI Board, Scientific Panel, and National Authorities

Trustworthiness Assurance Assessment for High-Risk AI-Based Systems

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

Human vs. Artificial intelligence: EU's legal response

AI Cards: Towards an Applied Framework for Machine-Readable AI and Risk Documentation Inspired by the EU AI Act

Navigating the EU AI Act: A Methodological Approach to Compliance for Safety-critical Products

Guideline for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence -- AI Assessment Catalog

Towards a Capability Assessment Model for the Comprehension and Adoption of AI in Organisations

APPRAISE: a governance framework for innovation with AI systems

Artificial intelligence, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law: a primer

COMPL-AI Framework: A Technical Interpretation and LLM Benchmarking Suite for the EU Artificial Intelligence Act

Human rights, democracy, and the rule of law assurance framework for AI systems: A proposal

Mitigating the adverse effects of AI with the European Union's artificial intelligence act: Hype or hope?