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

Read original: arXiv:2407.10369 - Published 7/16/2024 by Claudio Novelli, Philipp Hacker, Jessica Morley, Jarle Trondal, Luciano Floridi
Total Score

0

🤖

Sign in to get full access

or

If you already have an account, we'll log you in

Overview

  • The EU's Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) aims to regulate emerging technologies like AI
  • Implementing and enforcing the AIA will require coordination between various institutional bodies, both new and existing
  • This paper examines how the AIA governance framework will be structured and provides recommendations to ensure consistent execution

Plain English Explanation

The EU's new Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) is an attempt to regulate the rapidly evolving field of emerging technologies like artificial intelligence. However, simply passing legislation is not enough - it needs to be properly implemented and enforced.

This paper looks at how the governance of the AIA will work in practice. It explains the roles of different institutional bodies, both new ones created by the AIA and longstanding ones like the European Commission. The paper explores how these groups will coordinate across the EU and national levels to ensure the AIA is applied consistently.

The authors also propose a model for how this governance framework should operate. They make recommendations to help the AIA be executed uniformly and fulfill the goals of the legislation. This is important, as the success of regulations like the AIA ultimately depends on how well they are put into practice.

Technical Explanation

The paper first outlines the institutional bodies that will be responsible for implementing and enforcing the AIA. This includes existing entities like the European Commission, as well as new institutions established by the AIA itself, such as the AI Office.

The authors examine the roles and responsibilities of these groups at both the supranational EU level and the national level within member states. They explain how the structure and operations of these institutions will be directly shaped by the AIA regulations. The paper also discusses how the AIA may indirectly influence the administrative capabilities needed to enforce the legislation.

Beyond just describing the governance framework, the paper proposes a normative model for how this system should function. It offers recommendations to ensure the uniform and coordinated execution of the AIA, with the goal of fulfilling the intended purpose of the legislation.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a comprehensive overview of the institutional structures and processes that will be crucial for implementing the EU's AIA. By clearly outlining the key players and their responsibilities, the authors shed light on an important aspect of translating policy into practice.

One strength of the analysis is the recognition that effective regulation requires not just legislation, but also robust enforcement mechanisms. The paper rightly emphasizes that the success of the AIA will hinge on how well it is operationalized by the various governing bodies.

However, the paper does not delve deeply into potential challenges or limitations of the proposed governance model. For example, it does not address potential tensions or coordination issues that could arise between the EU-level and national-level institutions. Additionally, the recommendations for ensuring uniform execution could benefit from more concrete details.

Further research may be warranted to stress-test the governance framework and identify areas where additional oversight or restructuring may be needed to uphold the goals of the AIA. Ongoing monitoring and adjustment of the institutional arrangements may also be necessary as the AIA is implemented in the real world.

Conclusion

This paper provides an important contribution to understanding how the EU's Artificial Intelligence Act will be put into practice. By examining the governance structures and processes that will underpin the AIA, the authors shed light on a crucial aspect of translating policy into effective regulation of emerging technologies.

The insights offered here can help policymakers, regulators, and other stakeholders anticipate and prepare for the institutional challenges involved in implementing the AIA. Ultimately, the success of the legislation will depend on coordinated efforts across multiple governing bodies - making this analysis of the AIA's governance framework a valuable resource.



This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!

Follow @aimodelsfyi on 𝕏 →

Related Papers

🤖

Total Score

0

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

Claudio Novelli, Philipp Hacker, Jessica Morley, Jarle Trondal, Luciano Floridi

Regulation is nothing without enforcement. This particularly holds for the dynamic field of emerging technologies. Hence, this article has two ambitions. First, it explains how the EU's new Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) will be implemented and enforced by various institutional bodies, thus clarifying the governance framework of the AIA. Second, it proposes a normative model of governance, providing recommendations to ensure uniform and coordinated execution of the AIA and the fulfilment of the legislation. Taken together, the article explores how the AIA may be implemented by national and EU institutional bodies, encompassing longstanding bodies, such as the European Commission, and those newly established under the AIA, such as the AI Office. It investigates their roles across supranational and national levels, emphasizing how EU regulations influence institutional structures and operations. These regulations may not only directly dictate the structural design of institutions but also indirectly request administrative capacities needed to enforce the AIA.

Read more

7/16/2024

🏋️

Total Score

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 more

9/4/2024

🔎

Total Score

0

First Analysis of the EU Artifical Intelligence Act: Towards a Global Standard for Trustworthy AI?

Marion Ho-Dac (UA, CDEP)

The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) came into force in the European Union (EU) on 1 August 2024. It is a key piece of legislation both for the citizens at the heart of AI technologies and for the industry active in the internal market. The AI Act imposes progressive compliance on organisations - both private and public - involved in the global value chain of AI systems and models marketed and used in the EU. While the Act is unprecedented on an international scale in terms of its horizontal and binding regulatory scope, its global appeal in support of trustworthy AI is one of its major challenges.

Read more

8/19/2024

👀

Total Score

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 more

7/26/2024