The US Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2022 vs. The EU Artificial Intelligence Act: What can they learn from each other?

Overview

• The U.S. Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2022 (US AAA) is a pragmatic approach to balancing the benefits and risks of automated decision systems.
• However, there is still room for improvement, and the US AAA can both inform and learn from the European Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AIA).

Plain English Explanation

The US AAA is a new law that aims to address the potential harms of automated decision-making systems, such as those used in hiring, lending, or policing. It takes a balanced approach, recognizing both the benefits and risks of these technologies. The law requires companies to assess and mitigate the risks of their algorithms, and to be more transparent about how they work.

While the US AAA is a step in the right direction, it can still be improved. Lawmakers can look to the EU AIA, a similar but more comprehensive law being developed in Europe, to see how the US approach can be strengthened. For example, the EU AIA places a stronger emphasis on protecting human rights and ensuring algorithmic systems are designed with people in mind.

Technical Explanation

The US AAA requires companies to conduct risk assessments of their automated decision-making systems and to address any identified harms or biases. It also mandates increased transparency, such as making information about these systems publicly available.

While this is a positive step, the law could be further enhanced by incorporating some of the key features of the EU AIA. The EU AIA has a broader scope, covering a wider range of AI applications, and places stronger obligations on companies to ensure their systems respect fundamental rights.

Additionally, the EU AIA requires third-party audits of high-risk AI systems, which could help to improve the quality and independence of assessments. The AI Cards framework proposed in the EU context could also be a useful tool for enhancing transparency and accountability.

Critical Analysis

While the US AAA is a step in the right direction, there are still areas where it could be strengthened. The law's reliance on self-assessments by companies may not be enough to ensure rigorous and impartial evaluations of algorithmic risks.

The EU AIA's emphasis on human rights and its requirement for third-party audits could help to address this concern. However, the EU approach also faces challenges, such as ensuring the effectiveness of the proposed auditing regime.

Ultimately, both the US and EU approaches will need to be closely monitored and refined over time to ensure they effectively balance the benefits and risks of AI-powered decision-making systems.

Conclusion

The US Algorithmic Accountability Act represents a pragmatic attempt to regulate the use of automated decision systems, but it can learn from the more comprehensive approach being developed in the EU. By incorporating stronger protections for human rights and requiring independent audits, the US law could be further strengthened to safeguard against the potential harms of algorithmic decision-making while still enabling the benefits of these technologies.