Risks, innovation, and adaptability in the UK’s incrementalism versus the European Union’s comprehensive artificial intelligence regulation

Asress Adimi Gikay
{"title":"Risks, innovation, and adaptability in the UK’s incrementalism versus the European Union’s comprehensive artificial intelligence regulation","authors":"Asress Adimi Gikay","doi":"10.1093/ijlit/eaae013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) should strike a balance between addressing the risks of the technology and its benefits through enabling useful innovation whilst remaining adaptable to evolving risks. The European Union’s (EU) overarching risk-based regulation subjects AI systems across industries to a set of regulatory standards depending on where they fall in the risk bucket, whilst the UK’s sectoral approach advocates for an incremental regulation. By demonstrating the EU AI Act’s inability to adapt to evolving risks and regulate the technology proportionately, this article argues that the UK should avoid the EU AI Act’s compartmentalized high-risk classification system. The UK should refine its incremental regulation by adopting a generic principle for risk classification that allows for contextual risk assessment whilst adapting to evolving risks. The article contends that if refined appropriately, the UK’s incremental approach that relies on coordinate sectionalism encourages innovation without undermining the UK technology sector’s competitiveness in the global market of compliant AI, while also mitigating the potential risks presented by the technology.","PeriodicalId":44278,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law and Information Technology","volume":"136 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Law and Information Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eaae013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) should strike a balance between addressing the risks of the technology and its benefits through enabling useful innovation whilst remaining adaptable to evolving risks. The European Union’s (EU) overarching risk-based regulation subjects AI systems across industries to a set of regulatory standards depending on where they fall in the risk bucket, whilst the UK’s sectoral approach advocates for an incremental regulation. By demonstrating the EU AI Act’s inability to adapt to evolving risks and regulate the technology proportionately, this article argues that the UK should avoid the EU AI Act’s compartmentalized high-risk classification system. The UK should refine its incremental regulation by adopting a generic principle for risk classification that allows for contextual risk assessment whilst adapting to evolving risks. The article contends that if refined appropriately, the UK’s incremental approach that relies on coordinate sectionalism encourages innovation without undermining the UK technology sector’s competitiveness in the global market of compliant AI, while also mitigating the potential risks presented by the technology.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
英国的渐进主义与欧盟的全面人工智能法规之间的风险、创新和适应性对比
对人工智能(AI)的监管应在应对技术风险与技术效益之间取得平衡,既要支持有益的创新,又要适应不断变化的风险。欧洲联盟(欧盟)基于风险的总体监管要求各行业的人工智能系统根据其在风险桶中的位置遵守一系列监管标准,而英国的部门方法则主张渐进式监管。通过证明欧盟《人工智能法》无法适应不断变化的风险并对技术进行适度监管,本文认为,英国应避免欧盟《人工智能法》中条块分割的高风险分类系统。英国应完善其渐进式监管,采用通用的风险分类原则,允许根据具体情况进行风险评估,同时适应不断变化的风险。文章认为,如果改进得当,英国依赖于协调部门主义的渐进方法既能鼓励创新,又不会削弱英国技术部门在全球合规人工智能市场上的竞争力,同时还能减轻该技术带来的潜在风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Law and Information Technology provides cutting-edge and comprehensive analysis of Information Technology, Communications and Cyberspace law as well as the issues arising from applying Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) to legal practice. International in scope, this journal has become essential for legal and computing professionals and legal scholars of the law related to IT.
期刊最新文献
Digital identity: an approach to its nature, concept, and functionalities Can there be responsible AI without AI liability? Incentivizing generative AI safety through ex-post tort liability under the EU AI liability directive Quantum-safe global encryption policy Video-sharing-platforms and Brussels Ia regulation: navigating contractual jurisdictional challenges Artificial intelligence co-regulation? The role of standards in the EU AI Act
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1