The EU and AI

 

Image from Pixabay

I’ve said before that you shouldn’t ask an information security officer if you can use AI for your work, because that will lead to a risk analysis that will undoubtedly say: don’t do it. No, decisions about the application of certain forms of technology should be made by ‘the business’, or perhaps a better term, by the decision makers. They may well be influenced by our risk analyses, but there are more factors that decision makers should and/or want to take into account.

Sometimes the decision is to be made at the political level. Like with AI. Enter the European AI Act, a regulation on artificial intelligence (an EU regulation is legislation that applies throughout the European Union, without country-specific interpretations). The aim of the AI Act is to ensure that we get safe AI systems that respect our fundamental rights. These rights include transparency, traceability, non-discrimination and environmental friendliness. And the systems must be under human supervision to prevent harmful consequences.

The regulation divides the AI landscape into four risk levels. The highest level contains systems that pose an unacceptable risk to the safety, livelihood and rights of people and are therefore prohibited. Examples mentioned by the EU are voice-controlled toys that encourage dangerous behavior and real-time biometric identification (think of the facial recognition at traffic lights in China: if you walk through a red light, you’ll find a ticket in your mail).

The next category contains systems that pose a high but acceptable risk. They may have a negative impact on our safety and fundamental rights, and they fall into two subcategories: systems covered by EU product safety legislation, such as toys, cars, aviation, medical devices and lifts, and systems in certain areas, such as critical infrastructure, education, employment, law enforcement and migration. Such systems are assessed before they are allowed to be put on the market, and throughout their life cycle. National regulators must set up a complaints procedure.

One risk level lower are systems that pose a risk of deception. This includes generative AI, which creates content itself, such as ChatGPT and Gemini. Artificially generated content must be labelled as such. So if you chat with an AI chatbot on a website, they must clearly tell you. Deepfakes – videos, photos and sound fragments that are manipulated to make it seem like someone is doing or saying something – must also be labelled. AI systems that pose a minimal risk are not regulated. Examples include games and spam filters. According to the EU, the vast majority of AI systems currently in use fall into this category.

The AI Act will be implemented in phases. In February next year, unacceptable systems will be banned. Six months later, the national supervisors should be sitting in the saddle. Next year, the transparency rules for general AI (such as ChatGPT) will also come into force. And a year later, the rules for high-risk systems will come into force.

It is good to see that the EU is taking this issue by the horns in a timely manner. But you need have no illusions about everyone complying with the regulations. Criminals in particular have a knack for breaking the law. They will certainly continue to use deepfakes to make people believe that a loved one is in need and urgently needs money.

 

And in the big bad world…

• the military also needs AI regulations.
• ChatGPT is not a formal source.
• the Dutch tax administration took down air traffic control.
• sometimes you have to fall back on old-fashioned systems.
• This website collects European alternatives for digital products and services.
• ethical hackers are legally protected in Germany.
• You should be alert to phishing from booking.com.
• Australia wants to ban children and teenagers from social media to protect their mental health.