Assessing the State of AI Policy
0
🤖
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The rapid deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) applications has raised concerns about the risks they can pose, such as physical injury or unfair outcomes due to bias.
- Policymakers need to provide oversight, but often lack the technical expertise to assess whether emerging AI technologies are safe and effective.
- This work aims to provide policymakers with an overview of existing AI legislation and directives at various levels, as well as relevant business standards and technical society initiatives.
- The goal is to help policymakers make informed decisions and provide recommendations for future policy making.
Plain English Explanation
As AI technologies become increasingly common in our lives, from infrastructure to consumer products and home applications, there are growing concerns about the potential risks they can pose. These risks can take the form of physical harm or unfair outcomes due to biases in the AI systems.
Policymakers are responsible for providing oversight and regulation to ensure these AI technologies are safe and fair. However, many policymakers lack the technical knowledge to properly evaluate whether a new AI technology is ready for public use. They often have to rely on expert opinions to make these assessments.
This research paper aims to help policymakers by providing an overview of the current landscape of AI-related legislation and directives at the international, national, state, and local levels. It also covers relevant industry standards and initiatives from technical societies.
By synthesizing this information, the researchers hope to give policymakers a better understanding of the current landscape and provide guidance to help them make informed decisions about regulating AI in the future.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents an overview of the existing regulations, standards, and initiatives related to the deployment of AI technologies. The researchers conducted a comprehensive review of AI legislation and directives at the international, US federal, state, and city levels, as well as relevant business standards and technical society initiatives.
Through this analysis, the researchers identified areas of overlap and gaps in the current landscape. They then synthesized this information into a reference guide that includes recommendations and guidance for future policymaking.
The key elements of the paper include:
- Landscape analysis: A thorough review of existing AI-related policies, guidelines, and standards at various levels of government and industry.
- Overlap and gap analysis: An assessment of where the current landscape has redundancies or lacks coverage.
- Reference guide: A summary of the findings, including recommendations to support future policymaking efforts.
By providing policymakers with this comprehensive overview, the researchers aim to help bridge the technical knowledge gap and enable more informed decision-making when it comes to regulating emerging AI technologies.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a valuable resource for policymakers, as it addresses a critical need for a better understanding of the current regulatory landscape around AI. By synthesizing information from various sources, the researchers have created a practical reference guide that can help guide future policy decisions.
However, the paper does not delve deeply into the specific challenges and limitations of the existing policies and initiatives. For example, it does not assess the effectiveness or enforcement mechanisms of the various regulations and standards covered. Additionally, the paper does not explore potential conflicts or contradictions between the different policies and directives.
Further research could examine the real-world implementation and impact of the existing AI regulations and guidelines. This could help identify areas where policymakers may need to provide additional clarity or enforcement measures to ensure the safe and ethical deployment of AI technologies.
Conclusion
This research paper offers a comprehensive overview of the current state of AI legislation, directives, standards, and initiatives at multiple levels. By synthesizing this information, the researchers have created a valuable resource to help policymakers navigate the complex landscape of AI regulation.
The key takeaway is that while there is a growing body of policies and guidelines around AI, policymakers still face challenges in assessing the safety and effectiveness of emerging technologies. This paper lays the groundwork for more informed and evidence-based policymaking to ensure the responsible development and deployment of AI systems.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
🤖
0
Assessing the State of AI Policy
Joanna F. DeFranco, Luke Biersmith
The deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) applications has accelerated rapidly. AI enabled technologies are facing the public in many ways including infrastructure, consumer products and home applications. Because many of these technologies present risks either in the form of physical injury, or bias, potentially yielding unfair outcomes, policy makers must consider the need for oversight. Most policymakers, however, lack the technical knowledge to judge whether an emerging AI technology is safe, effective, and requires oversight, therefore policy makers must depend on expert opinion. But policymakers are better served when, in addition to expert opinion, they have some general understanding of existing guidelines and regulations. This work provides an overview [the landscape] of AI legislation and directives at the international, U.S. state, city and federal levels. It also reviews relevant business standards, and technical society initiatives. Then an overlap and gap analysis are performed resulting in a reference guide that includes recommendations and guidance for future policy making.
Read more8/1/2024
👀
0
Human Oversight of Artificial Intelligence and Technical Standardisation
Marion Ho-Dac (UA, CDEP), Baptiste Martinez (UA, CDEP)
The adoption of human oversight measures makes it possible to regulate, to varying degrees and in different ways, the decision-making process of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems, for example by placing a human being in charge of supervising the system and, upstream, by developing the AI system to enable such supervision. Within the global governance of AI, the requirement for human oversight is embodied in several regulatory formats, within a diversity of normative sources. On the one hand, it reinforces the accountability of AI systems' users (for example, by requiring them to carry out certain checks) and, on the other hand, it better protects the individuals affected by the AI-based decision (for example, by allowing them to request a review of the decision). In the European context, the AI Act imposes obligations on providers of high-risk AI systems (and to some extent also on professional users of these systems, known as deployers), including the introduction of human oversight tools throughout the life cycle of AI systems, including by design (and their implementation by deployers). The EU legislator is therefore going much further than in the past in spelling out the legal requirement for human oversight. But it does not intend to provide for all implementation details; it calls on standardisation to technically flesh out this requirement (and more broadly all the requirements of section 2 of chapter III) on the basis of article 40 of the AI Act. In this multi-level regulatory context, the question of the place of humans in the AI decision-making process should be given particular attention. Indeed, depending on whether it is the law or the technical standard that sets the contours of human oversight, the regulatory governance of AI is not the same: its nature, content and scope are different. This analysis is at the heart of the contribution made (or to be made) by legal experts to the central reflection on the most appropriate regulatory governance -- in terms of both its institutional format and its substance -- to ensure the effectiveness of human oversight and AI trustworthiness.
Read more7/26/2024
🏋️
2
The Artificial Intelligence Act: critical overview
Nuno Sousa e Silva
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.
Read more9/4/2024
🤖
0
AI Procurement Checklists: Revisiting Implementation in the Age of AI Governance
Tom Zick, Mason Kortz, David Eaves, Finale Doshi-Velez
Public sector use of AI has been quietly on the rise for the past decade, but only recently have efforts to regulate it entered the cultural zeitgeist. While simple to articulate, promoting ethical and effective roll outs of AI systems in government is a notoriously elusive task. On the one hand there are hard-to-address pitfalls associated with AI-based tools, including concerns about bias towards marginalized communities, safety, and gameability. On the other, there is pressure not to make it too difficult to adopt AI, especially in the public sector which typically has fewer resources than the private sector$unicode{x2014}$conserving scarce government resources is often the draw of using AI-based tools in the first place. These tensions create a real risk that procedures built to ensure marginalized groups are not hurt by government use of AI will, in practice, be performative and ineffective. To inform the latest wave of regulatory efforts in the United States, we look to jurisdictions with mature regulations around government AI use. We report on lessons learned by officials in Brazil, Singapore and Canada, who have collectively implemented risk categories, disclosure requirements and assessments into the way they procure AI tools. In particular, we investigate two implemented checklists: the Canadian Directive on Automated Decision-Making (CDADM) and the World Economic Forum's AI Procurement in a Box (WEF). We detail three key pitfalls around expertise, risk frameworks and transparency, that can decrease the efficacy of regulations aimed at government AI use and suggest avenues for improvement.
Read more4/24/2024