wp-plugin-hostgator domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home4/scienrds/scienceandnerds/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114ol-scrapes domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home4/scienrds/scienceandnerds/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114Source:https:\/\/techcrunch.com\/2023\/04\/21\/eu-ai-act-generative-ai\/<\/a><\/br> EU lawmakers in the European parliament are closing in on how to tackle generative AI as they work to fix their negotiating position so that the next stage of legislative talks can kick off in the coming months.<\/p>\n The hope then is that a final consensus on the bloc\u2019s draft law for regulating AI can be reached by the end of the year.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is the last thing still standing in the negotiation,\u201d says MEP Dragos Tudorache, the co-rapporteur for the EU\u2019s AI Act, discussing MEPs\u2019 talks around generative AI in an interview with TechCrunch. \u201cAs we speak, we are crossing the last \u2018T\u2019s and dotting the last \u2018I\u2019s. And sometime next week I\u2019m hoping that we will actually close \u2014 which means that sometime in May we will vote.\u201d<\/p>\n The Council adopted its position on the regulation back in December<\/a>. But where Member States largely favored deferring what to do about generative AI \u2014 to additional, implementing legislation \u2014 MEPs look set to propose that hard requirements are added to the Act itself.<\/p>\n In recent months, tech giants\u2019 lobbyists have been pushing in the opposite direction, of course, with companies such as Google and Microsoft arguing for generative AI to get a regulatory carve out<\/a> of the incoming EU AI rules.<\/p>\n Where things will end up remains tbc. But discussing what\u2019s likely to be the parliament\u2019s position in relation to generative AI tech in the Act, Tudorache suggests MEPs are gravitating towards a layered approach \u2014 three layers in fact \u2014 one to address responsibilities across the AI value chain; another to ensure foundational models get some guardrails; and a third to tackle specific content issues attached to generative models, such as the likes of OpenAI\u2019s ChatGPT.<\/p>\n Under the MEPs\u2019 current thinking, one of these three layers would apply to all general purpose AI (GPAIs) \u2014 whether big or small; foundational or non foundational models \u2014 and be focused on regulating relationships in the AI value chain.<\/p>\n \u201cWe think that there needs to be a level of rules that says \u2018entity A\u2019 puts on the market a general purpose [AI] has an obligation towards \u2018entity B\u2019, downstream, that buys the general purpose [AI] and actually gives it a purpose,\u201d he explains. \u201cBecause it gives it a purpose that might become high risk it needs certain information. In order to comply [with the AI Act] it needs to explain how the model was was trained. The accuracy of the data sets from biases [etc].\u201d<\/p>\n A second proposed layer would address foundational models \u2014 by setting some specific obligations for makers of these base models.<\/p>\n \u201cGiven their power, given the way they are trained, given the versatility, we believe the providers of these foundational models need to do certain things \u2014 both ex ante\u2026 but also during the lifetime of the model,\u201d he says. \u201cAnd it has to do with transparency, it has to do, again, with how they train, how they test prior to going on the market. So basically, what is the level of diligence the responsibility that they have as developers of these models?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The third layer MEPs are proposing would target generative AIs specifically \u2014 meaning a subset of GPAIs\/foundational models, such as large language models or generative art and music AIs. Here lawmakers working to set the parliament\u2019s mandate are taking the view these tools need even more specific responsibilities; both when it comes to the type of content they can produce (with early risks arising around disinformation and defamation); and in relation to the thorny (and increasingly litigated) issue of copyrighted material used to train AIs.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re not inventing a new regime for copyright because there is already copyright law out there. What we are saying\u2026 is there has to be a documentation and transparency about material that was used by the developer in the training of the model,\u201d he emphasizes. \u201cSo that afterwards the holders of those rights\u2026 can say hey, hold on, what you used my data, you use my songs, you used my scientific article \u2014 well, thank you very much that was protected by law, therefore, you owe me something \u2014 or no. For that will use the existing copyright laws. We\u2019re not replacing that or doing that in the AI Act. We\u2019re just bringing that inside.\u201d<\/p>\n The Commission proposed the draft AI legislation a full two years ago<\/a>, laying out a risk-based approach for regulating applications of artificial intelligence and setting the bloc\u2019s co-legislators, the parliament and the Council, the no-small-task of passing the world\u2019s first horizontal regulation on AI.<\/p>\n Adoption of this planned EU AI rulebook is still a ways off. But progress is being made and agreement between MEPs and Member States on a final text could be hashed out by the end of the year, per Tudorache \u2014 who notes that Spain, which takes up the rotating six-month Council presidency in July, is eager to deliver on the file. Although he also concedes there are still likely to be plenty of points of disagreement between MEPs and Member States that will have to be worked through. So a final timeline remains uncertain. (And predicting how the EU\u2019s closed-door trilogues will go is never an exact science.)<\/p>\n One thing is clear: The effort is timely \u2014 given how AI hype has rocketed in recent months, fuelled by developments in powerful generative AI tools, like DALL-E and ChatGPT.<\/p>\n The excitement around the boom in usage of generative AI tools that let anyone produce works such as written compositions or visual imagery just by inputting a few simple instructions has been tempered by growing concern over the potential for fast-scaling negative impacts to accompany the touted productivity benefits.<\/p>\n EU lawmakers have found themselves at the center of the debate \u2014 and perhaps garnering more global attention than usual \u2014 since they\u2019re faced with the tricky task of figuring out how the bloc\u2019s incoming AI rules should be adapted to apply to viral generative AI.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Commission\u2019s original draft proposed to regulate artificial intelligence by categorizing applications into different risk bands. Under this plan, the bulk of AI apps would be categorized as low risk \u2014 meaning they escape any legal requirements. On the flip side, a handful of unacceptable risk use-cases would be outright prohibited (such as China-style social credit scoring). Then, in the middle, the framework would apply rules to a third category of apps where there are clear potential safety risks (and\/or risks to fundamental rights) which are nonetheless deemed manageable.<\/p>\n The AI Act contains a set list of \u201chigh risk\u201d categories which covers AI being used in a number of areas that touch safety and human rights, such as law enforcement, justice, education, employment healthcare and so on. Apps falling in this category would be subject to a regime of pre- and post-market compliance, with a series of obligations in areas like data quality and governance; and mitigations for discrimination \u2014 with the potential for enforcement (and penalties) if they breach requirements.<\/p>\n The proposal also contained another middle category which applies to technologies such as chatbots and deepfakes \u2014 AI-powered tech that raise some concerns but not, in the Commission\u2019s view, so many as high risk scenarios. Such apps don\u2019t attract the full sweep of compliance requirements in the draft text but the law would apply transparency requirements that aren\u2019t demanded of low risk apps.<\/p>\n Being first to the punch drafting laws for such a fast-developing, cutting-edge tech field meant the EU was working on the AI Act long before the hype around generative AI went mainstream. And w<\/span>hile the bloc\u2019s lawmakers were moving rapidly in one sense, its co-legislative process can be pretty painstaking. So, as it turns out, two years on from the first draft the exact parameters of the AI legislation are still in the process of being hashed out. <\/span><\/p>\n The EU\u2019s co-legislators, in the parliament and Council, hold the power to revise the draft by proposing and negotiating amendments. So there\u2019s a clear opportunity for the bloc to address loopholes around generative AI without needing to wait for follow-on legislation to be proposed down the line, with the greater delay that would entail.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Even so, the EU AI Act probably won\u2019t be in force before 2025 \u2014 or even later, depending on whether lawmakers decide to give app makers one or two years before enforcement kicks in. (That\u2019s another point of debate for MEPs, per Tudorache.)<\/p>\n He stresses that it will be important to give companies enough time to prepare to comply with what he says will be \u201ca comprehensive and far reaching regulation\u201d. He also emphasizes the need to allow time for Member States to prepare to enforce the rules around such complex technologies, adding:\u00a0\u201cI don\u2019t think that all Member States are prepared to play the regulator role. They need themselves time to ramp up expertise, find expertise, to convince expertise to work for the public sector.<\/p>\n \u201cOtherwise, there\u2019s going to be such a disconnect between between the realities of the industry, the realities of implementation, and regulator, and you won\u2019t be able to force the two worlds into each other. And we don\u2019t want that either. So I think everybody needs that lag.\u201d<\/p>\n MEPs are also seeking to amend the draft AI Act in other ways \u2014 including by proposing a centralized enforcement element to act as a sort of backstop for Member State-level agencies; as well as proposing some additional prohibited use-cases (such as predictive policing; which is an area where the Council may well seek to push back).<\/p>\n \u201cWe are changing fundamentally the governance from what was in the Commission text, and also what is in the Council text,\u201d says Tudorache on the enforcement point. \u201cWe are proposing a much stronger role for what we call the AI Office. Including the possibility to have joint investigations. So we\u2019re trying to put as sharp teeth as possible. And also avoid silos. We want to avoid the 27 different jurisdiction effect [i.e. of fragmented enforcements and forum shopping to evade enforcement].\u201d<\/p>\n The EU\u2019s approach to regulating AI draws on how it\u2019s historically tackled product liability. This fit is obviously a stretch, given how malleable AI technologies are and the length\/complexity of the \u2018AI value chain\u2019 \u2014 i.e. how many entities may be involved in the development, iteration, customization and deployment of AI models. So figuring out liability along that chain is absolutely a key challenge for lawmakers.<\/p>\n The risk-based approach also raises specific questions over how to handle the particularly viral flavor of generative AI that\u2019s blasted into mainstream consciousness in recent months, since these tools don\u2019t necessarily have a clear cut use-case. You can use ChatGPT to conduct research, generate fiction, write a best man\u2019s speech, churn out marketing copy or pen lyrics to a cheesy pop song, for example \u2014 with the caveat that what it outputs may be neither accurate nor much good (and it certainly won\u2019t be original).<\/p>\n Similarly, generative AI art tools could be used for different ends: As an inspirational aid to artistic production, say, to free up creatives to do their best work; or to replace the role of a qualified human illustrator with cheaper machine output.<\/p>\n (Some also argue that generative AI technologies are even more speculative; that they are not general purpose at all but rather inherently flawed and incapable; representing an amalgam of blunt-force investment that\u2019s being imposed upon societies without permission or consent in a cripplingly-expensive and rights-trampling fishing expedition-style search for profit-making solutions.)<\/p>\n The core concern MEPs are seeking to tackle, therefore, is to ensure that underlying generative AI models like OpenAI\u2019s GPT can\u2019t just dodge risk-based regulation entirely by claiming they have no set purpose.<\/p>\n Deployers of generative AI models could also seek to argue they\u2019re offering a tool that\u2019s general purpose enough to escape any liability under the incoming law \u2014 unless there is clarity in the regulation about relative liabilities and obligations throughout the value chain. <\/span><\/p>\n One obviously unfair and dysfunctional scenario would be for all the regulated risk and liability to be pushed downstream, onto only the deployers of specific high risks apps. <\/span>Since these entities would, almost certainly, be utilizing generative AI models developed by other\/s upstream \u2014 so wouldn\u2019t have access to the data, weights etc used to train the core model \u2014 which would make<\/span> it impossible for them to comply with AI Act obligations, whether around data quality or mitigating bias.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n There was already criticism<\/a> about this aspect of the proposal prior to the generative AI hype kicking off in earnest. But the speed of adoption of technologies like ChatGPT appears to have convinced parliamentarians of the need to amend the text to make sure generative AI does not escape being regulated.<\/p>\n And while Tudorache isn\u2019t in a position to know whether the Council will align with the parliamentarians\u2019 sense of mission here, he says he has \u201ca feeling\u201d they will buy in \u2014 albeit, most likely seeking to add their own \u201ctweaks and bells and whistles\u201d to how exactly the text tackles general purpose AIs.<\/p>\n In terms of next steps, once MEPs close their discussions on the file there will be a few votes in the parliament to adopt the mandate. (First two committee votes and then a plenary vote.)<\/p>\n He predicts the latter will \u201cvery likely\u201d end up being taking place in the plenary session in early June \u2014 setting up for trilogue discussions to kick off with the Council and a sprint to get agreement on a text during the six months of the Spanish presidency. \u201cI\u2019m actually quite confident\u2026 we can finish with the Spanish presidency,\u201d he adds. \u201cThey are very, very eager to make this the flagship of their presidency.\u201d<\/p>\n Asked why he thinks the Commission avoided tackling generative AI in the original proposal, he suggests even just a couple of years ago very few people realized how powerful \u2014 and potentially problematic \u2014 these technology would become, nor indeed how quickly things could develop in the field. So it\u2019s a testament to how difficult it\u2019s getting for lawmakers to set rules around shapeshifting digital technologies which aren\u2019t already out of date before they\u2019ve even been through the democratic law-setting process.<\/p>\n Somewhat by chance, the timeline appears to be working out for the EU\u2019s AI Act \u2014 or, at least, the region\u2019s lawmakers have an opportunity to respond to recent developments. (Of course it remains to be seen what else might emerge over the next two years or so of generative AI which could freshly complicate these latest futureproofing efforts.)<\/p>\n Given the pace and disruptive potential of the latest wave of generative AI models, MEPs are sounding keen that others follow their lead \u2014 and Tudorache was one of a number of parliamentarians who put their names to an open letter<\/a> earlier this week, calling for international efforts to cooperate on setting some shared principles for AI governance.<\/p>\n The letter also affirms MEPs\u2019 commitment to setting \u201crules specifically tailored to foundational models\u201d \u2014 with the stated goal of ensuring \u201chuman-centric, safe, and trustworthy\u201d AI.<\/p>\n
\nEU lawmakers eye tiered approach to regulating generative AI<\/br>
\n2023-04-21 21:43:34<\/br><\/p>\n