Articles for tag: AIAInterdisziplinaritätKIKI-Verordnung

An Interdisciplinary Toolbox for Researching the AI-Act

The proposed AI-act (AIA) will fundamentally transform the production, distribution, and use of AI-systems across the EU. Legal research has an important role to play in both clarifying and evaluating the AIA. To this end, legal researchers may employ a legal-doctrinal method, and focus on the AIA’s provisions and recitals to describe or evaluate its obligations. However, legal-doctrinal research is not a panacea that can fully operationalize or evaluate the AIA on its own. Rather, with the support of interdisciplinary research, we can better understand the AIA’s vague provisions, test its real-life application, and create practical design requirements for the developers of AI-systems. This blogpost gives a short glimpse into the methodological toolbox for researching the AI-act.

One Act to Rule Them All

Soon Brussels' newest big thing - the Artificial Intelligence Act - will enter the Trilogues. In order to better understand what’s at stake, who are the main actors and their motivations, and how to make one’s mind about all the conflicting claims we need to dive into the legal, economic and political aspects of the AI Act. The aim of this piece is to contextualize major milestones in the negotiations, showcase some of its critical features and flaws, and present challenges it may in the near future pose to people affected by “smart” models and systems.

A Scandal on AI in Administration, Again

After the infamous Dutch benefits scandal, the Netherlands are yet again the scene of wrongful application of an algorithm by the government. This time, the main actor is the Dienst Uitvoering Onderwijs (DUO), the Dutch agency responsible for the allocation and payment of student loans to those enrolled in Dutch higher education. Specifically, DUO used an algorithm in their enforcement task, namely to verify whether the student loans have been rightfully allocated. In 2012, DUO commenced the use of this ‘in-house’ algorithm, which the Minister of Education – under whose responsibility DUO falls – halted on 23 June. The developments in the Netherlands epitomize the promises and pitfalls of further integrating automated decision-making (ADM) into public administration. On the one hand, ADM – sometimes labelled ‘artificial intelligence’ – is cheap and promises efficiency gains. On the other hand, ADM systems may be error-prone when facing the complex realities of societal life and legal ambiguity.

Politicians don’t dance? AI doesn’t either!

“Why don’t politicians ever dance? – Because they have too many steps to backtrack on!” Chat-GPT answered this when we asked the program to tell a political joke. While this example is somewhat worrying since the underlying assumption might perpetuate existing stereotypes about politics and politicians, the joke also highlights that AI has become witty and incredibly good at behaving in a way we perceive as human. Thus, we take the recent advancements of generative AI as a motivation to analyze its potential effects on political campaigns and democratic elections.

The Shape of Personalisation to Come

While targeted advertising is still a money-making machine for social media platforms, its motor has begun to sputter. However, with artificial intelligence, the potential is even greater for companies to discover and exploit biases and vulnerabilities in consumers that they themselves may not be aware of. The point of this dive into economic engineering of personalised environments on digital platforms is to highlight the intentional creation of algorithmically curated choice sets for consumers. How can the law ensure their fairness?

Attention Is All You Need

Das Verbot ChatGPTs durch die italienische Datenschutzbehörde bietet Gelegenheit einen Klassiker neu aufzulegen: Eine bahnbrechende, Technologie aus dem Silicon Valley zerschellt am harten Beton des Brüsseler Datenschutzregimes. Während einige technikkritische Stimmen laut applaudieren, prügeln andere auf das vermeintlich innovationsfeindliche Datenschutzrecht ein. Doch gibt ChatGPT tatsächlich Anlass für derart fundamentale datenschutzrechtliche Bedenken im Hinblick auf generative KIs?

Action Recommended

The DSA will have a say in what measures social media platforms will have to implement with regard to the recommendation engines they deploy to curate people’s feeds and timelines. It is a departure from the previous narrow view of content moderation, and pays closer attention to risks stemming from the amplification of harmful content and the underlying design choices. But it is too early to celebrate.

The Council of Europe Creates a Black Box for AI Policy

The Council of Europe Committee on AI has made a startling decision to carry forward future work on the development of an international convention on AI behind closed doors, despite the Council’s call for the Democratic Governance of Artificial Intelligence in a 2020 resolution. It is a surprising move from an international organization that has been at the forefront of efforts to promote greater transparency and accountability for the technology that is transforming the world.

Understanding and Regulating ChatGPT, and Other Large Generative AI Models

Large generative AI models are shaking up the research community and society at large, rapidly changing the way we communicate, illustrate, and create. What has rarely been noticed, however, is that the EU, since the spring of 2022, has quietly been preparing far-reaching rules to explicitly regulate these models. We make three concrete proposals.

Preserving Procedural Fairness in The AI Era

AI systems have been used and challenged by individuals affected by their output. In the absence of a regulatory framework, national courts in Europe have been called upon to address claimants’ demands for fairness and legal protection. While they have been activists in preserving individuals’ procedural rights by setting requirements for AI systems, the courts' role is, however, doomed to change when the AI Act enters into force.