New AI regulation in the EU seeks to reduce risk without assessing public benefit

Barbara Prainsack,Nikolaus Forgó

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-02874-2

IF: 82.9

2024-03-19

Nature Medicine

Abstract:The European Union's new AI Act focuses on risk without considering benefits, which could hinder the development of new technology while failing to protect the public.

biochemistry & molecular biology,cell biology,medicine, research & experimental

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The EU AI Act is a good start but falls short

Chalisa Veesommai Sillberg,Jose Siqueira De Cerqueira,Pekka Sillberg,Kai-Kristian Kemell,Pekka Abrahamsson

2024-11-13

Abstract:The EU AI Act was created to ensure ethical and safe Artificial Intelligence (AI) development and deployment across the EU. This study aims to identify key challenges and strategies for helping enterprises focus on resources effectively. To achieve this aim, we conducted a Multivocal Literature Review (MLR) to explore the sentiments of both the industry and the academia. From 130 articles, 56 met the criteria. Our key findings are three-fold. First, liability. Second, discrimination. Third, tool adequacy. Additionally, some negative sentiments were expressed by industry and academia regarding regulatory interpretations, specific requirements, and transparency issues. Next, our findings are three essential themes for enterprises. First, risk-based regulatory compliance. Second, ethical frameworks and principles in technology development. Third, policies and systems for regulatory risk management. These results identify the key challenges and strategies and provide less commonly discussed themes, enabling enterprises to align with the requirements and minimize their distance from the EU market.

Software Engineering
AI Regulation in Europe: From the AI Act to Future Regulatory Challenges

Philipp Hacker

2023-10-06

Abstract:This chapter provides a comprehensive discussion on AI regulation in the European Union, contrasting it with the more sectoral and self-regulatory approach in the UK. It argues for a hybrid regulatory strategy that combines elements from both philosophies, emphasizing the need for agility and safe harbors to ease compliance. The paper examines the AI Act as a pioneering legislative effort to address the multifaceted challenges posed by AI, asserting that, while the Act is a step in the right direction, it has shortcomings that could hinder the advancement of AI technologies. The paper also anticipates upcoming regulatory challenges, such as the management of toxic content, environmental concerns, and hybrid threats. It advocates for immediate action to create protocols for regulated access to high-performance, potentially open-source AI systems. Although the AI Act is a significant legislative milestone, it needs additional refinement and global collaboration for the effective governance of rapidly evolving AI technologies.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence
The risks of risk-based AI regulation: taking liability seriously

Martin Kretschmer,Tobias Kretschmer,Alexander Peukert,Christian Peukert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.14684

2023-11-03

Computers and Society

Abstract:The development and regulation of multi-purpose, large "foundation models" of AI seems to have reached a critical stage, with major investments and new applications announced every other day. Some experts are calling for a moratorium on the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4. Legislators globally compete to set the blueprint for a new regulatory regime. This paper analyses the most advanced legal proposal, the European Union's AI Act currently in the stage of final "trilogue" negotiations between the EU institutions. This legislation will likely have extra-territorial implications, sometimes called "the Brussels effect". It also constitutes a radical departure from conventional information and communications technology policy by regulating AI ex-ante through a risk-based approach that seeks to prevent certain harmful outcomes based on product safety principles. We offer a review and critique, specifically discussing the AI Act's problematic obligations regarding data quality and human oversight. Our proposal is to take liability seriously as the key regulatory mechanism. This signals to industry that if a breach of law occurs, firms are required to know in particular what their inputs were and how to retrain the system to remedy the breach. Moreover, we suggest differentiating between endogenous and exogenous sources of potential harm, which can be mitigated by carefully allocating liability between developers and deployers of AI technology.
Human vs. Artificial intelligence: EU's legal response

Marijana Mladenov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5937/ptp2300032m

2023-01-01

Pravo - teorija i praksa

Abstract:Artificial intelligence (AI) has the capacity to improve not only the individual quality of life, but also economic and social welfare. Although the AI systems have many advantages, they also pose significant risks, creating a wide range of moral and legal dilemmas. The European Union has been creating a legal framework for developing, trading, and using AI-driven products, services, and systems to reduce the risks connected with the AI systems and to prevent any possible harm they may cause. The main focus of this paper refers to the analysis of the Proposal for the Artificial Intelligence Act submitted by the European Commission in April 2021. The goal of the article is to move toward a possible resolution to the dilemma of whether the AIA proposal is appropriate for the AI era by addressing the scope of its application, the prohibited AI practices, rules on high-risk AI systems, specific transparency obligations, as well as certain regulatory gaps. The article should be viewed as an initial analysis of the AIA proposal in order to provide a useful framework for the future discussion.
Acceptable risks in Europe's proposed AI Act: Reasonableness and other principles for deciding how much risk management is enough

Henry Fraser,Jose-Miguel Bello y Villarino

2023-07-26

Abstract:This paper critically evaluates the European Commission's proposed AI Act's approach to risk management and risk acceptability for high-risk AI systems that pose risks to fundamental rights and safety. The Act aims to promote "trustworthy" AI with a proportionate regulatory burden. Its provisions on risk acceptability require residual risks from high-risk systems to be reduced or eliminated "as far as possible", having regard to the "state of the art". This criterion, especially if interpreted narrowly, is unworkable and promotes neither proportionate regulatory burden, nor trustworthiness. By contrast the Parliament's most recent draft amendments to the risk management provisions introduce "reasonableness", cost-benefit analysis, and are more transparent about the value-laden and contextual nature of risk acceptability judgements. This paper argues that the Parliament's approach is more workable, and better balances the goals of proportionality and trustworthiness. It explains what reasonableness in risk acceptability judgments would entail, drawing on principles from negligence law and European medical devices regulation. And it contends that the approach to risk acceptability judgments need a firm foundation of civic legitimacy: including detailed guidance or involvement from regulators, and meaningful input from affected stakeholders.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence
Tackling problems, harvesting benefits -- A systematic review of the regulatory debate around AI

Anja Folberth,Jutta Jahnel,Jascha Bareis,Carsten Orwat,Christian Wadephul

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5445/IR/1000150432

2022-09-07

Abstract:How to integrate an emerging and all-pervasive technology such as AI into the structures and operations of our society is a question of contemporary politics, science and public debate. It has produced a considerable amount of international academic literature from different disciplines. This article analyzes the academic debate around the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI). The systematic review comprises a sample of 73 peer-reviewed journal articles published between January 1st, 2016, and December 31st, 2020. The analysis concentrates on societal risks and harms, questions of regulatory responsibility, and possible adequate policy frameworks, including risk-based and principle-based approaches. The main interests are proposed regulatory approaches and instruments. Various forms of interventions such as bans, approvals, standard-setting, and disclosure are presented. The assessments of the included papers indicate the complexity of the field, which shows its prematurity and the remaining lack of clarity. By presenting a structured analysis of the academic debate, we contribute both empirically and conceptually to a better understanding of the nexus of AI and regulation and the underlying normative decisions. A comparison of the scientific proposals with the proposed European AI regulation illustrates the specific approach of the regulation, its strengths and weaknesses.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence
An Assessment of the AI Regulation Proposed by the European Commission

Patrick Glauner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2105.15133

2021-05-27

Abstract:In April 2021, the European Commission published a proposed regulation on AI. It intends to create a uniform legal framework for AI within the European Union (EU). In this chapter, we analyze and assess the proposal. We show that the proposed regulation is actually not needed due to existing regulations. We also argue that the proposal clearly poses the risk of overregulation. As a consequence, this would make the use or development of AI applications in safety-critical application areas, such as in healthcare, almost impossible in the EU. This would also likely further strengthen Chinese and US corporations in their technology leadership. Our assessment is based on the oral evidence we gave in May 2021 to the joint session of the European Union affairs committees of the German federal parliament and the French National Assembly.

Computers and Society
The Artificial Intelligence Act: critical overview

Nuno Sousa e Silva

2024-08-31

Abstract:This article provides a critical overview of the recently approved Artificial Intelligence Act. It starts by presenting the main structure, objectives, and approach of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. A definition of key concepts follows, and then the material and territorial scope, as well as the timing of application, are analyzed. Although the Regulation does not explicitly set out principles, the main ideas of fairness, accountability, transparency, and equity in AI underly a set of rules of the regulation. This is discussed before looking at the ill-defined set of forbidden AI practices (manipulation and e exploitation of vulnerabilities, social scoring, biometric identification and classification, and predictive policing). It is highlighted that those rules deal with behaviors rather than AI systems. The qualification and regulation of high-risk AI systems are tackled, alongside the obligation of transparency for certain systems, the regulation of general-purpose models, and the rules on certification, supervision, and sanctions. The text concludes that even if the overall framework can be deemed adequate and balanced, the approach is so complex that it risks defeating its own purpose of promoting responsible innovation within the European Union and beyond its borders.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence
Analysing Risk-Based Approach in the Draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act

Dmitryi Leonidovich Kuteynikov,Osman Alikovich Izhaev

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/2713-2749.2023.3.97.116

2023-10-31

Legal Issues in the Digital Age

Abstract:The article delves into the risk-based approach underpinning the draft EU ArtificialIntelligence Act. Anticipated to be approved by the end of 2023, this regulation ispoised to serve as a cornerstone in the European Union’s legal framework forgoverning the development and deployment of artificial intelligence systems (AIsystems). However, the ever-evolving technological landscape continues to presentnovel challenges to legislators, necessitating ongoing solutions that will span yearsto come. Moreover, the widespread proliferation of foundation models and generalpurpose AI systems over the past year underscores the need to refine the initialrisk-based approach concept. The study comprehensively examines the inherentissues within the risk-based approach, including the delineation of AI systemcategories, their classification according to the degree of risk to human rights, andthe establishment of optimal legal requirements for each subset of these systems.The research concludes that the construction of a more adaptable normative legalframework mandates differentiation of requirements based on risk levels, as well asacross all stages of an AI system’s lifecycle and levels of autonomy. The paper alsodelves into the challenges associated with extending the risk-oriented approach toencompass foundation models and general purpose AI systems, offering distinctanalyses for each.

English Else
Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence and the European Union AI Act: On the Conflation of Trustworthiness and the Acceptability of Risk

Johann Laux,Sandra Wachter,Brent Mittelstadt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4230294

2022-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:Governments, international organisations, corporations, and other institutions around the globe are drawing up frameworks for ‘trustworthy’ Artificial Intelligence (AI). This effort follows an explicit strategic premise: raise the trustworthiness of AI and people will trust it more, thus use it more, and unlock the technology’s economic and social potential. With its proposed AI Act, the European Union (EU) has put itself at the forefront of this regulatory development. Adopting a risk-based approach towards AI, the EU chose to understand trustworthiness of AI in terms of the acceptability of its risks. This conflation of trustworthiness with acceptability of risk invites further reflection. Based on a narrative systematic literature review on institutional trust and the use of AI in the public sector, this paper argues that the EU adopted a simplistic conceptualisation of trust and is overselling its regulatory ambition. The AI Act is a proposal for technocratic risk-regulation which by itself is unlikely to effectively signal trustworthiness or raise actual levels of trust in citizens. This paper makes four contributions. First, it reconstructs the conflation of ‘trustworthiness’ with the ‘acceptability of risks’ in the EU’s AI policy. Second, with a view on the extreme heterogeneity of trust research, the paper develops a prescriptive set of variables for reviewing trust research in the context of AI. Third, it then uses those variables as a structure for a narrative review of prior research on trust and trustworthiness in AI in the public sector. Fourth, the paper relates the findings of the review to the EU’s AI policy. It states the uncertain prospects for the AI Act to be successful in engineering citizen’s trust. There remains a threat of misalignment between levels of actual trust and the trustworthiness of applied AI. The conflation of ‘trustworthiness’ with the ‘acceptability of risks’ in the AI Act will thus be shown to be inadequate.
Questioning the EU proposal for an Artificial Intelligence Act: The need for prohibitions and a stricter approach to biometric surveillance

Irena Barkane,Irena Nesterova

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/ip-211524

2022-04-22

Information Polity

Abstract:Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based surveillance technologies such as facial recognition, emotion recognition and other biometric technologies have been rapidly introduced by both public and private entities all around the world, raising major concerns about their impact on fundamental rights, the rule of law and democracy. This article questions the efficiency of the European Commission’s Proposal for Regulation of Artificial Intelligence, known as the AI Act, in addressing the threats and risks to fundamental rights posed by AI biometric surveillance systems. It argues that in order to meaningfully address risks to fundamental rights the proposed classification of these systems should be reconsidered. Although the draft AI Act acknowledges that some AI practices should be prohibited, the multiple exceptions and loopholes should be closed, and in addition new prohibitions, in particular to emotional recognition and biometric categorisation systems, should be added to counter AI surveillance practices violating fundamental rights. The AI Act should also introduce stronger legal requirements, such as third-party conformity assessment, fundamental rights impact assessment, transparency obligations as well as enhance existing EU data protection law and the rights and remedies available to individuals, thus not missing the unique opportunity to adopt the first legal framework that truly promotes trustworthy AI.
Mitigating the adverse effects of AI with the European Union's artificial intelligence act: Hype or hope?

Manuel Wörsdörfer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22238

2023-11-14

Global Business and Organizational Excellence

Abstract:Abstract In light of the rise of generative AI and recent debates about the socio‐political implications of large‐language models, chatbots, and the like, this paper analyzes the E.U.’s Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA), the world's first comprehensive attempt by a government body to address and mitigate the potentially negative impacts of AI technologies. The paper critically analyzes the AIA from a business and computer ethics point of view—a perspective currently lacking in the academic (e.g., GBOE‐related) literature. It evaluates, in particular, the AIA's strengths and weaknesses and proposes reform measures that could help to strengthen the AIA. Among the AIA's strengths are its legally binding character, extra‐territoriality, ability to address data quality and discrimination risks, and institutional innovations such as the AI Board and publicly accessible logs and database for AI systems. Among its main weaknesses are its lack of effective enforcement, oversight, and control, absence of procedural rights and remedy mechanisms, inadequate worker protection, institutional ambiguities, insufficient funding and staffing, and inadequate consideration of sustainability issues. Reform suggestions include establishing independent conformity assessment procedures, strengthening democratic accountability and judicial oversight, introducing redress and complaint mechanisms, ensuring the participation and inclusion of workers, guaranteeing political independence of the AI Board, providing enhanced funding and staffing of market surveillance authorities, and mandating “green AI.”
The European AI Act and How It Matters for Research into AI in Media and Journalism

Natali Helberger,Nicholas Diakopoulos

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2082505

IF: 5.4

2022-07-31

Digital Journalism

Abstract:No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. 1 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union legislative acts, COM/2021/206 final. Please note: at the time of writing, the AI Act was still a first proposal. This commentary discusses the act in the version that was published by the European Commission on 21 April 2021. The substance of the regulation as well as the article numbers can change in the final version of the law. 2 Independent High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence, Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI, Brussels, 8 April 2019. 3 Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and amending Directive 2000/31/ECCOM/2020/825 final, the Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector (Digital Markets Act), COM/2020/842 final. 4 Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on European data governance (Data Governance Act), COM/2020/767 final, Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on harmonised rules on fair access to and use of data (Data Act), Brussels, 23.2.2022, COM(2022) 68 final. 5 COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS On the European democracy action plan, COM/2020/790 final; Call for Evidence for an Impact Assessment, Safeguarding media freedom and pluralism in the internal market (Media Freedom Act), Ares(2021)7899801 - 21/12/2021. 6 Recital 11 draft AI Act. 7 Art. 2 (1) draft AI Act, Recital 6. 8 Art. 3 (1) draft AI Act. 9 For excellent more comprehensive descriptions o f the content of the regulation see (Veale and Zuiderveen Borgesius 2021 Veale, Michael , and Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius . 2021 . " Demystifying the Draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act ." Computer Law Review International 22 (4): 97 – 112 . [Crossref] , [Google Scholar] ; Spindler 2021 Spindler, Gerald. 2021 . " Der Vorschlag Der EU-Kommission Für Eine Verordnung Zur Regulierung Der Künstlichen Intelligenz ." CR 37 (6): 361 – 374 . [Google Scholar] ; Floridi 2021 Floridi, Luciano. 2021 . " The European Legislation on AI: A Brief Analysis of Its Philosophical Approach ." Philosophy & Technology 34 (2): 215 – 222 . [Crossref], [PubMed] , [Google Scholar] ). 10 Art. 29 draft AI Act. 11 Art. 7 (2) draft AI Act. 12 Art. 26 of the Digital Services Act. 13 Art. 53 draft AI Act. 14 Art. 52(1) draft AI Act. 15 https://thefix.media/2021/10/12/digital-revolution-high-end-digitization-solutions-from-the-biggest-norwegian-daily/ 16 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56278411 17 Point 6(c) of Annex III in conjunction with Article 6(2) of AI Act. 18 Art. 69 draft AI Act. 19 Recommendation CM/Rec(2020)1 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the human rights impacts of algorithmic systems, Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 April 2020. 20 European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the transparency and targeting of political advertising, Brussels, 25.11.2021, COM(2021) 731 final.

communication
Normative Challenges of Risk Regulation of Artificial Intelligence and Automated Decision-Making

Carsten Orwat,Jascha Bareis,Anja Folberth,Jutta Jahnel,Christian Wadephul

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2211.06203

2022-11-11

Computers and Society

Abstract:Recent proposals aiming at regulating artificial intelligence (AI) and automated decision-making (ADM) suggest a particular form of risk regulation, i.e. a risk-based approach. The most salient example is the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) proposed by the European Commission. The article addresses challenges for adequate risk regulation that arise primarily from the specific type of risks involved, i.e. risks to the protection of fundamental rights and fundamental societal values. They result mainly from the normative ambiguity of the fundamental rights and societal values in interpreting, specifying or operationalising them for risk assessments. This is exemplified for (1) human dignity, (2) informational self-determination, data protection and privacy, (3) justice and fairness, and (4) the common good. Normative ambiguities require normative choices, which are distributed among different actors in the proposed AIA. Particularly critical normative choices are those of selecting normative conceptions for specifying risks, aggregating and quantifying risks including the use of metrics, balancing of value conflicts, setting levels of acceptable risks, and standardisation. To avoid a lack of democratic legitimacy and legal uncertainty, scientific and political debates are suggested.
Editorial: European Law Restrictions on Tax Authorities’ Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems: Reflections on Some Recent Developments

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/ecta2024006

2024-04-01

EC Tax Review

Abstract:The article discusses the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) by tax authorities in the European Union, the resulting benefits and risks, and the necessity for an appropriate legal framework. Tax administrations employ AI systems for various tasks, from risk detection to legal analysis. While automation offers efficiency, there are also risks, such as violations of fundamental rights and discrimination, illustrated by examples like the Dutch childcare benefits scandal. It deals with two relevant EU regulations, namely the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the proposed European AI regulation (AI Act), emphasizing the need for more clarity and protection for taxpayers. The GDPR imposes a principled ban on fully automated decisions but allows exceptions if appropriate measures are in place. The AI Act introduces a right to human intervention for high-risk AI systems, but the author argues that the regulations are not clear enough, especially in view of the upcoming ‘tax administration 3.0ʹ model of the OECD further reducing human intervention. In short, specific guidelines and regulations are needed to ensure the fundamental rights of taxpayers in an increasingly automated tax environment. Artificial Intelligence (AI), Tax authorities, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), European Union Artificial Intelligence Regulation (AI Act), Fundamental rights, Tax collection process, Human intervention, Risk detection, Taxpayer assistance, Tax administration 3.0 model (OECD)
AI Regulation in the European Union: Examining Non-State Actor Preferences

Jonas Tallberg,Magnus Lundgren,Johannes Geith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2023.36

2023-11-28

Abstract:As the development and use of artificial intelligence (AI) continues to grow, policymakers are increasingly grappling with the question of how to regulate this technology. The most far-reaching international initiative is the European Union (EU) AI Act, which aims to establish the first comprehensive, binding framework for regulating AI. In this article, we offer the first systematic analysis of non-state actor preferences toward international regulation of AI, focusing on the case of the EU AI Act. Theoretically, we develop an argument about the regulatory preferences of business actors and other non-state actors under varying conditions of AI sector competitiveness. Empirically, we test these expectations using data from public consultations on European AI regulation. Our findings are threefold. First, all types of non-state actors express concerns about AI and support regulation in some form. Second, there are nonetheless significant differences across actor types, with business actors being less concerned about the downsides of AI and more in favor of lax regulation than other non-state actors. Third, these differences are more pronounced in countries with stronger commercial AI sectors. Our findings shed new light on non-state actor preferences toward AI regulation and point to challenges for policymakers balancing competing interests in society.

General Economics
Offering false security: How the draft artificial intelligence act undermines fundamental workers rights

Aude Cefaliello,Miriam Kullmann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20319525221114474

2022-10-20

European Labour Law Journal

Abstract:In April 2021, the European Commission published its first draft of the Proposal for a Regulation on Artificial Intelligence. Since AI in the work context has increasingly become important in organising work and managing workers, the AI Act will undoubtedly have an impact on EU and national labour law systems. One aim of the proposal is to guarantee ‘consistency with existing Union legislation applicable to sectors where high-risk Artificial Intelligence systems are already used or likely to be used in the near future’, which includes the EU social acquis. It could be argued that ensuring true consistency with EU law means guaranteeing that the way the AI Act will be implemented and applied will still allow the other pieces of EU labour law to fulfil their purpose. It is undeniable that the implementation of the AI Act will overlap with various fields of EU law, especially considering the increasing use of AI technology at work. Thus, this article seeks to identify ways to refine the AI Act, insofar as it impacts work. The contribution discusses the current AI Act as proposed in April 2021, thereby focusing on two particular areas, EU non-discrimination law and EU law on occupational health and safety (OSH), as these two areas are, more or less explicitly, addressed as legal fields in the AI Act. The article starts with taking the perspective of EU labour law influencing the development of AI systems used in the employment context. We argue that providers should respect EU labour law throughout the development of the AI system (section 2). Then, the areas where EU labour law and the AI overlap are identified, thereby viewing it from an employer's perspective, i.e., the user of the AI system (section 3). Using two specific EU labour law areas (the right not to be discriminated against and the right to healthy and safe working conditions) the article provides a first assessment of how the AI Act might influence work and the regulation thereof (section 4). Finally, the conclusion critically explores whether and to what extent AI in employment situations warrants particular attention (section 5).
The European Commission’s Proposal for an Artificial Intelligence Act—A Critical Assessment by Members of the Robotics and AI Law Society (RAILS)

Martin Ebers,Veronica R. S. Hoch,Frank Rosenkranz,Hannah Ruschemeier,Björn Steinrötter

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/j4040043

2021-10-08

J

Abstract:On 21 April 2021, the European Commission presented its long-awaited proposal for a Regulation “laying down harmonized rules on Artificial Intelligence”, the so-called “Artificial Intelligence Act” (AIA). This article takes a critical look at the proposed regulation. After an introduction (1), the paper analyzes the unclear preemptive effect of the AIA and EU competences (2), the scope of application (3), the prohibited uses of Artificial Intelligence (AI) (4), the provisions on high-risk AI systems (5), the obligations of providers and users (6), the requirements for AI systems with limited risks (7), the enforcement system (8), the relationship of the AIA with the existing legal framework (9), and the regulatory gaps (10). The last section draws some final conclusions (11).
The future regulation of artificial intelligence systems in healthcare services and medical research in the European Union

Janos Meszaros,Jusaku Minari,Isabelle Huys

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2022.927721

IF: 3.7

2022-10-05

Frontiers in Genetics

Abstract:Despite its promising future, the application of artificial intelligence (AI) and automated decision-making in healthcare services and medical research faces several legal and ethical hurdles. The European Union (EU) is tackling these issues with the existing legal framework and drafting new regulations, such as the proposed AI Act. The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) partly regulates AI systems, with rules on processing personal data and protecting data subjects against solely automated decision-making. In healthcare services, (automated) decisions are made more frequently and rapidly. However, medical research focuses on innovation and efficacy, with less direct decisions on individuals. Therefore, the GDPR's restrictions on solely automated decision-making apply mainly to healthcare services, and the rights of patients and research participants may significantly differ. The proposed AI Act introduced a risk-based approach to AI systems based on the principles of ethical AI. We analysed the complex connection between the GDPR and AI Act, highlighting the main issues and finding ways to harmonise the principles of data protection and ethical AI. The proposed AI Act may complement the GDPR in healthcare services and medical research. Although several years may pass before the AI Act comes into force, many of its goals will be realised before that.

genetics & heredity
Risk Management in the Artificial Intelligence Act

Jonas Schuett

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2023.1

2023-02-09

European Journal of Risk Regulation

Abstract:The proposed Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) is the first comprehensive attempt to regulate artificial intelligence (AI) in a major jurisdiction. This article analyses Article 9, the key risk management provision in the AI Act. It gives an overview of the regulatory concept behind the norm, determines its purpose and scope of application, offers a comprehensive interpretation of the specific risk management requirements and outlines ways in which the requirements can be enforced. This article can help providers of high-risk systems to comply with the requirements set out in Article 9. In addition, it can inform revisions of the current draft of the AI Act and efforts to develop harmonised standards on AI risk management.

English Else

New AI regulation in the EU seeks to reduce risk without assessing public benefit

The EU AI Act is a good start but falls short

AI Regulation in Europe: From the AI Act to Future Regulatory Challenges

The risks of risk-based AI regulation: taking liability seriously

Human vs. Artificial intelligence: EU's legal response

Acceptable risks in Europe's proposed AI Act: Reasonableness and other principles for deciding how much risk management is enough

Tackling problems, harvesting benefits -- A systematic review of the regulatory debate around AI

An Assessment of the AI Regulation Proposed by the European Commission

The Artificial Intelligence Act: critical overview

Analysing Risk-Based Approach in the Draft EU Artificial Intelligence Act

Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence and the European Union AI Act: On the Conflation of Trustworthiness and the Acceptability of Risk

Questioning the EU proposal for an Artificial Intelligence Act: The need for prohibitions and a stricter approach to biometric surveillance

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

The European AI Act and How It Matters for Research into AI in Media and Journalism

Normative Challenges of Risk Regulation of Artificial Intelligence and Automated Decision-Making

Editorial: European Law Restrictions on Tax Authorities’ Use of Artificial Intelligence Systems: Reflections on Some Recent Developments

AI Regulation in the European Union: Examining Non-State Actor Preferences

Offering false security: How the draft artificial intelligence act undermines fundamental workers rights

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

The future regulation of artificial intelligence systems in healthcare services and medical research in the European Union

Risk Management in the Artificial Intelligence Act