New Rules For Artificial Intelligence – Questions and Answers

 

New Rules For Artificial Intelligence

-Questions and Answers-

European Commission

2021

 

  1. Why do we need to regulate the use of Artificial Intelligence technology?

The potential benefits of AI for our societies are manifold from improved medical care to better education. Faced with the rapid technological development of AI, the EU must act as one to harness these opportunities. While most AI systems will pose low to no risk, certain AI systems create risks that need to be addressed to avoid undesirable outcomes. For example, the opacity of many algorithms may create uncertainty and hamper the effective enforcement of the existing legislation on safety and fundamental rights. Responding to these challenges, legislative action is needed to ensure a well-functioning internal market for AI systems where both benefits and risks are adequately addressed. This includes applications such as biometric identification systems or AI decisions touching on important personal interests, such as in the areas of recruitment, education, healthcare or law enforcement. The Commission’s proposal for a regulatory framework on AI aims to ensure the protection of fundamental rights and user safety, as well as trust in the development and uptake of AI.

 

  1. Which risks will the new AI rules address?

The uptake of AI systems has a strong potential to bring societal benefits, economic growth and enhance EU innovation and global competitiveness. However, in certain cases, the specific characteristics of certain AI systems may create new risks related to user safety and fundamental rights. This leads to legal uncertainty for companies and potentially slower uptake of AI technologies by businesses and citizens, due to the lack of trust. Disparate regulatory responses by national authorities would risk fragmenting the internal market.

 

  1. What are the risk categories?

The Commission proposes a risk–based approach, with four levels of risk:

Unacceptable risk: A very limited set of particularly harmful uses of AI that contravene EU values because they violate fundamental rights (e.g. social scoring by governments, exploitation of vulnerabilities of children, use of subliminal techniques, and – subject to narrow exceptions – live remote biometric identification systems in publicly accessible spaces used for law enforcement purposes) will be banned.

High-risk: A limited number of AI systems defined in the proposal, creating an adverse impact on people’s safety or their fundamental rights (as protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights) are considered to be high-risk. Annexed to the proposal is the list of high-risk AI systems, which can be reviewed to align with the evolution of AI use cases (future-proofing). These also include safety components of products covered by sectorial Union legislation. They will always be high-risk when subject to third-party conformity assessment under that sectorial legislation. In order to ensure trust and a consistent and high level of protection of safety and fundamental rights, mandatory requirements for all high-risk AI systems are proposed. Those requirements cover the quality of data sets used; technical documentation and record keeping; transparency and the provision of information to users; human oversight; and robustness, accuracy and cybersecurity. In case of a breach, the requirements will allow national authorities to have access to the information needed to investigate whether the use of the AI system complied with the law. The proposed framework is consistent with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in line with the EU’s international trade commitments.

Limited risk: For certain AI systems specific transparency requirements are imposed, for example where there is a clear risk of manipulation (e.g. via the use of chatbots). Users should be aware that they are interacting with a machine.

Minimal risk: All other AI systems can be developed and used subject to the existing legislation without additional legal obligations. The vast majority of AI systems currently used in the EU fall into this category. Voluntarily, providers of those systems may choose to apply the requirements for trustworthy AI and adhere to voluntary codes of conduct.

 

  1. What are the obligations for providers of high-risk AI systems?

Before placing a high-risk AI system on the EU market or otherwise putting it into service, providers must subject it to a conformity assessment. This will allow them to demonstrate that their system complies with the mandatory requirements for trustworthy AI (e.g. data quality, documentation and traceability, transparency, human oversight, accuracy and robustness). In case the system itself or its purpose is substantially modified, the assessment will have to be repeated. For certain AI systems, an independent notified body will also have to be involved in this process. AI systems being safety components of products covered by sectorial Union legislation will always be deemed high-risk when subject to third-party conformity assessment under that sectorial legislation. Also for biometric identification systems a third party conformity assessment is always required.

Providers of high-risk AI systems will also have to implement quality and risk management systems to ensure their compliance with the new requirements and minimise risks for users and affected persons, even after a product is placed on the market. Market surveillance authorities will support post-market monitoring through audits and by offering providers the possibility to report on serious incidents or breaches of fundamental rights obligations of which they have become aware.

 

  1. How will compliance be enforced?

Member States hold a key role in the application and enforcement of this Regulation. In this respect, each Member State should designate one or more national competent authorities to supervise the application and implementation, as well as carry out market surveillance activities. In order to increase efficiency and to set an official point of contact with the public and other counterparts, each Member State should designate one national supervisory authority, which will also represent the country in the European Artificial Intelligence Board.

 

  1. What is the European Artificial Intelligence Board?

The European Artificial Intelligence Board would comprise high-level representatives of competent national supervisory authorities, the European Data Protection Supervisor, and the Commission. Its role will be to facilitate a smooth, effective and harmonised implementation of the new AI Regulation. The Board will issue recommendations and opinions to the Commission regarding high-risk AI systems and on other aspects relevant for the effective and uniform implementation of the new rules. It will also help building up expertise and act as a competence centre that national authorities can consult. Finally, it will also support standardisation activities in the area.

 

  1. Will imports of AI systems and applications need to comply with the framework?

Yes. Importers of AI systems will have to ensure that the foreign provider has already carried out the appropriate conformity assessment procedure and has the technical documentation required by the Regulation. Additionally, importers should ensure that their system bears a European Conformity (CE) marking and is accompanied by the required documentation and instructions of use.

 

  1. How is the Machinery Regulation related to AI?

Machinery regulation ensures that the new generation of machinery products guarantee the safety of users and consumers, and encourage innovation. Machinery products cover an extensive range of consumer and professional products, from robots (cleaning robots, personal care robots, collaborative robots, industrial robots) to lawnmowers, 3D printers, construction machines, industrial production lines.

 

  1. How does it fit with the regulatory framework on AI?

Both are complementary. The AI Regulation will address the safety risks of AI systems ensuring safety functions in machinery, while the Machinery Regulation will ensure, where applicable, the safe integration of the AI system into the overall machinery, so as not to compromise the safety of the machinery as a whole.

 

You can reach all questions and the original from the link below:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_21_1683#3

Artificial Intelligence Assets and Criminal Law

 

Artificial Intelligence Assets and Criminal Law

 

criminal law and AI stock ile ilgili görsel sonucu

 

Hakan Aksoy

PhD Student

Istanbul University

2021

 

 

 

 

Abstract

 

“With the development of technology, artificial intelligence assets have started to be used in almost every area of our daily lives. It is anticipated that these assets, which are now available to people service and make their jobs easier, will achieve human status and do some professions in the future. These developments also bring some legal and criminal questions. What are the legal status of artificial intelligence assets, who will have criminal responsibility for crimes that arise due to their use, and what is their role in criminal proceedings are among the questions to be answered. The purpose of this study is to make an assessment on these questions with existing legal regulations. The methodology of the study is carried out as a literature review. As a result of the study, it has been concluded that artificial intelligence assets are in the status of ‘property’, cannot be held responsible for crimes due to their use, and cannot be replaced by the subjects (judges, prosecutors, lawyers) of the proceedings, although they have important contributions to the criminal proceedings. In this context, existing legal regulations are sufficient to solve the problems that will arise. However, if artificial intelligence assets acquire ‘human’ status as a fully autonomous and conscious entity, radical changes will be required in our legal system.”

 

You

can find original paper from the link below:

https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1293489

 

Is Turkish Copyright Law Ready to Protect Works Generated by Artificial Intelligence?

Is Turkish Copyright Law Ready to Protect Works Generated by

Artificial Intelligence?

 

Image for post

 

 

 

Dr. Hasan Kadir YILMAZTEKİN

Türkiye Adalet Akademisi

GSÜHFD, 2020; 2: 1513-1586

 

 

 

 

 

 

Portreit generated via AI by Mario Klingemann

 

 

Abstract

 

“Artificial intelligence (“AI”) nowadays immensely and importantly infiltrates our lives. From Apple’s Siri to Tesla’s auto-driving car and Amazon’s Alexa, we live in a world of AI goods.

The advent of AI-powered technologies increasingly affects people‟s life across the globe. With its technological advances, AI also shapes our economy and welfare.

Current AI Technologies can produce many works that might be subject of copyright law. An AI device’s ability to generate works raises the question of who will own the intellectual property rights over those works. Will it be the author who hires or contracts with the AI device programmer? Will it be the programmer? Or will it be the AI device itself? Or will it be a joint work?

In this article, we seek answers to these questions under European Union (EU), United States of America (US), United Kingdom (UK) laws and more comprehensively under Turkish law. In short, this study makes policy proposals for Turkish copyright law. It particularly offers a proposal of a solution based on a three-step test to single out the human authors(s) from the relevant actors around the AI device and model legal norms for AI-generated works.

 

 

You can reach original article from the link below:

https://dosya.gsu.edu.tr/docs/hukukfakultesi/tr/fakultedergisi/GSUHFD-2020-2.pdf

Click to access GSUHFD-2020-2.pdf

 

Sociological Imagination; Artificial Intelligence and Alan Turing

 

Sociological Imagination: Artificial Intelligence and Alan Turing

 

Çağatay Topal

DTCF Press, 2017

 

Abstract

“C. Wright Mills views sociological imagination as the ability to relate the most intimate to the most impersonal. There are essential linkages between personal troubles and social issues. The sociologist should be able to trace the linkages between biographies and histories. Sociological imagination necessitates sensibility, commitment and responsibility since sociology is a practice of life as well as a practice of work. Sociology is, then, a practice that potentially everyone can perform. The crucial condition is the existence of sociological imagination and sensibility. This sensibility indicates the capacity to picture a social imaginary, however broad or limited. This paper traces the sociological imagination of Alan Turing, who is often considered as the founder of modern computing technology. The history of Turing’s scientific endeavours follows (and is followed by) his biography, revealing the strong linkages between his life and work. Turing’s sensible, committed and responsible attitude is clear in several cases. This paper focuses on the case of artificial intelligence in order to assess Turing’s sociological imagination. The paper claims that Alan Turing has the sensibility and imagination to picture a social imaginary. In order to analyse Turing’s imagination in the example of artificial intelligence, the paper refers to three faces of sociological imagination of Mills: (1) emphasis on the relation between the most intimate and the most impersonal; (2)
developing new sensibilities and new spaces of sensibility; (3) imagining a social picture. By referring to these three faces, the paper analyses the biography of Turing, his mathematical but also sociological imagination, and artificial intelligence as the product of this imagination; and again through artificial intelligence, it further aims to demonstrate the different possibilities in C. W. Mills’ concept of sociological imagination.”

 

You can find original and full article from the link below:

Towards Regulation of AI Systems

 

Towards Regulation of AI Systems

 

The CAHAI Secretariat
December 2020

 

Summary

 

Title 1. International Perspective

Preliminary Chapter introduces the present report, submitted by the CAHAI to the Committee of Ministers and details the progress achieved to date, taking into account the impact of COVID-19 pandemic measures. It also includes reflections on working methods, synergy and complementarity with other relevant stakeholders and proposals for further action by the CAHAI by means of a robust and clear roadmap.

Chapter 1 outlines the impact of AI on human rights, democracy and rule of law. It identifies those human rights, as set out by the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”), its Protocols and the European Social Charter (“ESC”), that are currently most impacted or likely to be impacted by AI.

 Chapter 2 maps the relevant corpus of soft law documents and other ethical-legal frameworks developed by governmental and non- governmental organisations globally with a twofold aim. First, we want to monitor this ever-evolving spectrum of non-mandatory governance instruments. Second, we want to prospectively assess the impact of AI on ethical principles, human rights, the rule of law and democracy.

Chapter 3 aims to contribute to the drafting of future AI regulation by building on the existing binding instruments, contextualising their principles and providing key regulatory guidelines for a future legal framework, with a view to preserving the harmonisation of the existing legal framework in the field of human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

 

You can find original document from the link below:

https://rm.coe.int/cahai-ai-regulation-publication-en/1680a0b8a4

Data Privacy Guidelines for AI Solutions

 

Data Privacy Guidelines for AI Solutions

November 2020

Purpose

  1. The purpose of this paper is to provide guiding principles concerning the use of personal and personal related information in the context of Artificial Intelligence (AI) solutions1 developed as part of applied Information & Communication Technologies (ICTs), and to emphasise the importance of a legitimate basis for AI data processing by governments and corporations. 
  2. This Guidance is intended to serve as a common international minimum baseline for data protection standards regarding AI solutions, especially those to be implemented at the domestic level, and to be a reference point for the ongoing debate on how the right to privacy can be protected in the context of AI solutions. 
  3. AI solutions are intended to guide or make decisions that affect all our lives. Therefore, AI solutions are currently subject to broader debates within society. The subject of these debates – moral, ethical and societal questions including non-discrimination and free participation, are still to be solved. All of these questions are preconditioned by lawful data processing from a data privacy perspective. The data privacy underpinnings for AI solutions are the focus of this Guidance. 
  4. This guideline is based on the United Nations Charter of Human Rights (The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Dec. 10th , 1948, reaffirmed 2015, UDHR) and reflects the spirit as well as the understanding of this Charter. Above all Article 7 (non-discrimination) and Article 12 (right to privacy) shall be considered whenever developing or operating AI solutions. The themes and values of these UDHR Articles are found in Articles 2 and 3 (nondiscrimination), and Article 17 (privacy) of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and are obligations upon countries that have ratified the Treaty. 

Scope

  1. This Guidance is applicable to the data processing of AI solutions in all sectors of society including the public and private sectors. Data processing in this context means the design, the development, the operation and decommissioning of an AI solution. 
  2. This Guidance is applicable to all controllers of AI solutions. Controller in this context means designer, developer or operator (self-responsible or principal) each in its specific function. 
  3. This Guidance does not limit or otherwise affect any law that grants data subjects more, wider or in whatsoever way better rights, protection, and/or remedies. This Guidance does not limit or otherwise affect any law that imposes obligations on controllers and processors where that law imposes higher, wider or more rigorous obligations regarding data privacy aspects.
  4. This Guidance does not apply to AI solutions that might be performed by individuals in the context of purely private, non-corporate or household activities.

 

(All submissions must have been received by 2 November 2020.)

 

You can find original draft Guidelines from the link below:

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Privacy/SR_Privacy/2020_Sept_draft_data_Privacy_guidelines.pdf

Preventing Discrimination Caused by the Use of Artificial Intelligence 

 

Preventing Discrimination Caused by the Use of Artificial Intelligence 

Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination
Rapporteur: Christophe LACROIX, Belgium, 2020

 

Summary

Artificial intelligence (AI), by allowing massive upscaling of automated decision-making processes, creates opportunities for efficiency gains – but in parallel, it can perpetuate and exacerbate discrimination. Public and private sector uses of AI have already been shown to have a discriminatory impact, while information flows tend to highlight extremes and foster hate. The use of biased datasets, design that fails to integrate the need to protect human rights, the lack of transparency of algorithms and of accountability for their impact, as well as a lack of diversity in AI teams, all contribute to this phenomenon.

States must act now to prevent AI from having a discriminatory impact in our societies, and should work together to develop international standards in this field. 

Parliaments must moreover play an active role in overseeing the use of AI-based technologies and ensuring it is subject to public scrutiny. Domestic antidiscrimination legislation should be reviewed and amended to ensure that victims of discrimination caused by the use of AI have access to an effective remedy, and national equality bodies should be effectively equipped to deal with the impact of AI-based technologies. 

Respect for equality and non-discrimination must be integrated from the outset in the design of AI-based systems, and tested before their deployment. The public and private sectors should actively promote diversity and interdisciplinary approaches in technology studies and professions.

 

You can reach original report from the link below:

Click to access doc.%2015151.pdf

1 2 3 11