First-ever rules for safe Artificial Intelligence

On June 14^th, the European Parliament adopted its negotiating position on the artificial intelligence act (“AIA”) ahead of talks with EU member states on the final shape of the law. The rules would ensure that artificial intelligence (“AI”) developed and used in Europe is fully in line with EU rights and values including human oversight, safety, privacy, transparency, non-discrimination and social and environmental wellbeing.

Parliament also wants to establish a technology-neutral, uniform definition for AI that could be applied to future AI systems. The AI Act sets different rules for different AI risks levels.

What is AI?

It is first of all necessary to point out that artificial intelligence system means software that is developed with one or more identified techniques and approaches that can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, generate outputs such as content, predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing the environments they interact with.

AI is a fast evolving family of technologies that can bring a wide array of economic and societal benefits across the entire spectrum of industries and social activities. By improving prediction, optimising operations and resource allocation, and personalising service delivery, the use of artificial intelligence can support socially and environmentally beneficial outcomes and provide key competitive advantages to companies and the European economy. Such action is especially needed in high-impact sectors, including climate change, environment and health, the public sector, finance, mobility, home affairs and agriculture. However, the same elements and techniques that power the socio-economic benefits of AI can also bring about new risks or negative consequences for individuals or the society.

Rapid regulatory development

An online public consultation was launched BY EU Commission on February 19^th 2020 along with the publication of the White Paper on Artificial Intelligence and ran until 14 June 2020. The objective of that consultation was to collect views and opinions on the same white paper. It targeted all interested stakeholders from the public and private sectors, including governments, local authorities, commercial and non-commercial organisations, social partners, experts, academics and citizens.

Overall, there is a general agreement amongst stakeholders on a need for action. A large majority of stakeholders agree that legislative gaps exist or that new legislation is needed. However, several stakeholders warn the Commission to avoid duplication, conflicting obligations and overregulation. There were many comments underlining the importance of a technology neutral and proportionate regulatory framework. Stakeholders mostly requested a narrow, clear and precise definition for AI. Stakeholders also highlighted that besides the clarification of the term of AI, it is important to define ‘risk’, ‘high-risk’, ‘low-risk’, ‘remote biometric identification’ and ‘harm’.

Most of the respondents are explicitly in favour of the risk-based approach. Using a risk-based framework was considered a better option than blanket regulation of all AI systems. The types of risks and threats should be based on a sector-by-sector and case-by-case approach. Risks also should be calculated taking into account the impact on rights and safety.

In April 2021, the EU Commission proposed the first EU regulatory framework for AI. It says that AI systems that can be used in different applications are analysed and classified according to the risk they pose to users. The different risk levels will mean more or less regulation. Once approved, these will be the world’s first rules on AI.

On June 14^th June 2023, EU Parliament has adopted his negotiating position on the AI Act. The talks will now begin with EU countries in the Council on the final form of the law.

The aim is to reach an agreement by the end of this year.

Parliament’s priority is to make sure that AI systems used in the EU are safe, transparent, traceable, non-discriminatory and environmentally friendly. AI systems should be overseen by people, rather than by automation, to prevent harmful outcomes.

Parliament also wants to establish a technology-neutral, uniform definition for AI that could be applied to future AI systems.

Different Rules For Different Risk Levels

The new rules establish obligations for providers and users depending on the level of risk from artificial intelligence. While many AI systems pose minimal risk, they need to be assessed.

Unacceptable risk

AI systems with an unacceptable level of risk to people’s safety would therefore be prohibited, such as those used for social scoring (classifying people based on their social behaviour or personal characteristics). Parliament expanded the list to include bans on intrusive and discriminatory uses of AI, such as:

• “Real-time” remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces;
• “Post” remote biometric identification systems, with the only exception of law enforcement for the prosecution of serious crimes and only after judicial authorization;
• biometric categorisation systems using sensitive characteristics (e.g. gender, race, ethnicity, citizenship status, religion, political orientation);
• predictive policing systems (based on profiling, location or past criminal behaviour);
• emotion recognition systems in law enforcement, border management, the workplace, and educational institutions; and
• untargeted scraping of facial images from the internet or CCTV footage to create facial recognition databases (violating human rights and right to privacy).

High-risk

Parliament ensured the classification of high-risk applications will now include AI systems that pose significant harm to people’s health, safety, fundamental rights or the environment. AI systems used to influence voters and the outcome of elections and in recommender systems used by social media platforms (with over 45 million users) were added to the high-risk list.

Limited risk

Limited risk AI systems should comply with minimal transparency requirements that would allow users to make informed decisions. After interacting with the applications, the user can then decide whether they want to continue using it. Users should be made aware when they are interacting with AI. This includes AI systems that generate or manipulate image, audio or video content, for example deepfakes.

Obligations for general purpose AI

Providers of foundation models - a new and fast-evolving development in the field of AI - would have to assess and mitigate possible risks (to health, safety, fundamental rights, the environment, democracy and rule of law) and register their models in the EU database before their release on the EU market. Generative AI systems based on such models, like ChatGPT, would have to comply with transparency requirements (disclosing that the content was AI-generated, also helping distinguish so-called deep-fake images from real ones) and ensure safeguards against generating illegal content. Detailed summaries of the copyrighted data used for their training would also have to be made publicly available.

Supporting innovation and protecting citizens' rights

To boost AI innovation and support small and medium sizes enterprises, Parliament added exemptions for research activities and AI components provided under open-source licenses. The new law promotes so-called regulatory sandboxes, or real-life environments, established by public authorities to test AI before it is deployed.

Finally, Parliament wants to boost citizens’ right to file complaints about AI systems and receive explanations of decisions based on high-risk AI systems that significantly impact their fundamental rights. Parliament also reformed the role of the EU AI Office, which would be tasked with monitoring how the AI rulebook is implemented.