Event Recap: Is the EU’s AI Policy Headed in the Right Direction? – Center for Data Innovation

In a panel discussion hosted by the Center for Data Development, policymakers and market agents talked about the European Commission’s white paper on AI, the policy options it lays out for a legal framework, and the obstacles dealing with the EU as it intends to lead in development.

Irina Orssich, who leads a team looking at AI at DG Link, shared initial results of the Commission’s public assessment on the white paper. (The Commission has now .) Of the assessment’s 1,215 reactions, only 3 percent of participants say that current EU legislation sufficiently deals with issues concerning AI. 33 percent of participants favor changing existing legislation. In addition, 43 percent of participants state that obligatory requirements should use only to high-risk AI, while 85 percent favor ex-ante assessment measures. A lot of participants believe that guidelines need to cover biometric tools. After examining the general public feedback, the Commission will launch a legislative proposal on AI. In the interim, the Commission is planning a virtual occasion for the European AI Alliance at the start of October.

The assessment’s responses also advise that the EU closely cooperate with member states. Eline Chivot, senior policy analyst at the Center for Data Development, mentioned that numerous nationwide AI methods stay aspirational, do not have sufficient detail on execution and clarity on efficiency procedures, and overlook financing truths. Panelists Renaud Vedel, prefect and coordinator of France’s nationwide technique for AI at the French Ministry of the Economy and Finance, and Kees van der Klauw, union manager of the Netherlands AI Coalition, both mentioned that specific member states have a key role in carrying out the EU’s AI approach, and that they need to develop on each other’s efforts by balancing strategies, pooling resources, and sharing outcomes, so regarding guarantee less highly sophisticated EU member specifies benefit.

The EU is facing more critical obstacles that might prevent it from leading in AI. Vedel warned that the EU single digital market is not a truth yet, and has yet to be fully integrated. In addition, the EU is dealing with a brain drain, and the U.S. market is more attractive to EU AI start-ups and scale-ups than the fragmented EU community.

A crucial point of conversation was around the challenges raised by the GDPR, particularly regarding access to personal data. Vedel remembered that the EU’s personal privacy law was written before today’s AI wave. While information should be secured, it is essential to AI advancement. Rigid regulation threats restricting AI and artificial intelligence applications in the EU in locations which are advancing quickly, such as computer vision and natural language processing, while EU competitors have more flexibility to invest, innovate, and release these applications on the market. The EU and member states need to unwind some of the GDPR’s binding guidelines, which limit the collection and usage of individual information for AI systems, and deal with the implications of divergent interpretations of these laws. A legal framework that lacks pragmatism and agility, and which would be burdensome for companies, will avoid EU start-ups to grow and compete internationally. Janne Elvelid, policy supervisor EU affairs at Facebook, added that policy must support, rather than obstruct, the numerous benefits AI can deliver for development, society, and financial growth.

Panelists promoted for a steady method to future AI legislation, and its positioning with the GDPR as the law covers a couple of elements of automatic choice making. Orssich responded that the Commission is dealing with identifying and addressing gaps in the EU’s substantial body of legal regimes that currently cover AI systems. She stressed the Commission’s awareness about the requirement for a clear framework that promotes innovation and the existing protocols supporting a controlled environment making it possible for screening and experimentation.

Van der Klauw and Vedel seconded Orssich’s comment. For instance, in order to capture up with the United States and China in the worldwide AI race and implement a vision for AI, the Dutch federal government supports a learning approach and pragmatic mindset. The EU must develop environments permitting innovators to “make mistakes first and ask forgiveness later,” for example through digital development centers and fields labs. The French AI strategy calls for business to proactively utilize a clause in the GDPR that enables personal data to be repurposed and optimize its reuse if it serves the public interest, in sectors such as health care, defense, the environment, and transport, but this stays an isolated effort. Panelists concurred that as the technology and legal environment modifications, it is essential to accommodate current policy, and permit stakeholders to share, test, and explore technical understanding, and develop useful, marketable AI applications (e.g., for movement or health care).

Panelists discussed China’s ambitious AI technique and increasing involvement in standard-setting bodies. The EU can not ignore China’s efforts to affect the development of worldwide standards and to promote its own innovation requirements internationally, for circumstances in AI, 5G, and cybersecurity. China is an unsafe competitor which is massively investing in AI, is making strides in computer system vision, natural language processing, and automated cars, and has a market bigger than Europe. The EU’s vision for AI, based upon basic rights, contrasts with China’s approach and while it can not complete with respect to financing and investment, the EU can use an alternative, consisting of through its commercial technique, a human-centric technique, and by seizing opportunities for international cooperation, particularly including transatlantic collaborations.