While the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) is still at its infancy in the EU and the US, it is already becoming apparent that there are different approaches among countries on how to regulate AI. Does this mean that an international agreement will become necessary later on? What are the pros and cons of such an international regulatory approach?
Dear Rafael Dean Brown . Yes of course. See the following useful link: https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/11/1106612
Kindly see also the following useful link: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/research/strengthening-international-cooperation-on-ai/%3Famp
Also check please the following useful link: https://www.globalcompliancenews.com/2022/01/17/singapore-unesco-members-adopt-a-global-agreement-on-the-ethics-of-artificial-intelligence-30122021/
The following link is also very useful: https://sciencebusiness.net/events/responsibly-intelligent-towards-international-agreement-ethics-ai
Visit kindly the following useful link: https://irp.fas.org/eprint/lloc-ai.pdf
You are most welcome dear Rafael Dean Brown . Wish you the best always.
Honestly,I am not convinced that an international agreement provides a solution. It may delineate a general framework,but national legislation or EU regulation will be needed.
Tamás Pongó dr. There are certainly ongoing efforts at national and regional legislation in the EU as a whole, in EU member states like the proposed EU AI Act. There are also national legislation on specific areas like autonomous vehicles.
Are you concerned at all about regulatory uniformity or even forum shopping? Or that countries with stronger AI legislation like the EU may be disadvantaged in AI innovation when compared to countries like China with lesser regulatory and liability constraints for AI development?
At this stage of development of public relations and AI it is necessary to develop a Title Law on the scope of AI Preprint PRACTICAL ISSUES OF LEGAL REGULATION OF APPLICATION OF TECHN...
Oleksii Kostenko Thanks for sharing. Do you have an English version of the article as well? Would love to read it.
перегляньте будь ласка Article ELECTRONIC JURISDICTION, METAVERSE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE,...
Oleksii Kostenko Thanks for sharing. The article certainly identifies the convergence of a number of emerging tech as posing a set of significant challenges to current theories and concepts of regulation. Hope to read more of your work in the future. In what areas of artificial intelligence is an international agreement most needed.
In the context of the Ukraine war, has there been instances of the use of AI autonomous weapons?
An example of the development of the Title Law can be found in the materials of the 4th working group of Uncitral on the law on "Identity Management".
As for AI weapons, we will know for sure after Ukraine's victory. I think I will dedicate a separate work to this topic.
Thank you for your professional attention.
Oleksii Kostenko IDM is an interesting aspect of AI regulation. I am especially interested in your ideas and also the potential use zero knowledge proofs for IDM.
problems of IDM regulation in my other works. You can view.
AI is a set of algorithms, ID is a set of data. AI can process and manage IDs according to specified algorithms, but ID is the main key to all data or to access any data. The future of ID - in the latest electronic ecosystems, all processes will take place around and exclusively with the use of ID. this is also true for IoT (see my relevant work)
Thank you for your debate and opinions. I'm agree with you. I writte an article about autonomous weapons some years ago I share with you, sorry is in spanish.
Lucía
Congratulations Mrs. Lucia!
I am infinitely grateful for your attention to my work and thank you sincerely for the opportunity to read your publication. It is very acute for me.
I hope for creative cooperation. What do you think about it?
The national law of most countries has sufficient provisions to regulate the use of programmable systems in the economic life of societies.
On the other hand, international law should become a regulatory instrument for the use of programmable systems for military purposes.
It is quite enough to use the capabilities of artificial “intelligent” systems for the timely processing of information by so-called "expert systems" that help staff make more rational decisions.
It should be clearly understood that programmable systems cannot independently create a threat to the existence of humanity since they do not, and cannot, have their own interests.
On the other hand, artificial subjective systems can pose a threat to man's existence as a species and to other forms of biological life.
This is because the property of subjectivity can only belong to subjects.
Artificial subjective systems created as fully autonomous rational agents (FARA) will have their own interests and will need resources to satisfy them.
This can lead to a conflict of interest between the FARA and representatives of biological life forms.
No human ethics norms built into FARA can effectively constrain FARA's behavior, as ethical standards serve the communities in which they are formulated.
Humanity will not be able to create a stable symbiotic community with FARA because, by necessity, FARA will be made superior to man in their capabilities and the speed of progression of the system.
Therefore, regardless of the initial conditions, FARA will very soon recognize that humanity has nothing to offer them to ensure the sustainability of the symbiosis, proposed by many, with FARA.
In essence, attempts to grant the FARA inalienable personal rights, for any reason, are attempts to betray the interests of our own kind.
Does humanity need FARA? Yes, we need them, because of the continuous complication of social life, the emergence of new threats to the existence of life, and, ultimately, the need for human settlement on other celestial bodies, which is necessary to preserve intelligent life under the conditions of the existence of irresistible forces of nature.
The danger to the existence of biological life forms associated with the use of FARA can be eliminated by using the external motivation of FARA and constructively removing the possibility for FARA to have desires of their own.
Unfortunately, this method is applicable at relatively small, by cosmic scale, distances, with a limited information transfer rate and limited propagation speed.
This method is of little use at distances exceeding several million kilometers and is wholly inapplicable over significantly longer distances.
Lucia Aparicio Thank you for sharing. Do you think there should an international agreement on the use of autonomous weapons?
Michael A. Zeldich Thanks for your substantial input. I agree with your distinction between weak and strong AI. Though, I am unsure whether there is global consensus on allowing strong AI. Many seem to favor a human centric AI where humans remain in control as expressed in the latest UNESCO AI Ethics agreement. For this point, an international agreement may be necessary on whether strong AI should even be allowed in the first place. It seems more debate is needed on that matter on aspects like ethics, role of AI, and impact of human society.
Rafael Dean Brown, sorry, but I do not mention a strong AI. Instead, I mention an artificial subjective systems, which are belong to the new class of artificial systems.
This is an important and necessary debate, especially today. AI is a world without borders. In my opinion, global AI regulation should be on the main agenda of governments. The EU GDPR was not enough to prevent the exploitation of people's privacy. The questions that arise are: What would this regulation look like and how would it be implemented? Who would be the coordinator: UN? There is no doubt that international cooperation would be necessary, at least to start this discussion.
Dear colleague! Such a body already exists. This is the 4th working group of the UN Commission on International Trade Law of the International Chamber of Commerce and the European Economic Commission (UNCITRAL). The Commission developed the Model Law on Electronic Commerce and the Model Law on Electronic Signatures with Guide to Enactment 2001. He is currently working on a model law on identity management.
However, there are some drawbacks. This commission is working very slowly (((((
Thank you, my dear colleague, for your answer. I really did not know about it. However, in this case, would the World Trade Organization not have regulatory competence? In any case, it is urgent that this regulation on the use of AI be implemented. Also, it cannot be limited solely to trade, as this is just one of the aspects that demand special regulatory attention.
I believe there should, having an agreement that covers all countries would ensure that everyone is on the same footing on the extend in which they can use or rely on AI. I feel as though the difficulty of having such an agreement would be who regulates it, makes sure its up to date and at what point can its Contents be changed. The other difficult part would be to decide what happens when some of the countries no longer want to be part of that agreement, would they end it or would they be forced to stay in it? Would legal action be taken against them and what judicial approach would be used in such cases?
There are lot of factors to be considered if an agreement was to be drawn...
Dear Mr. Francisco!
UNCITRAL oversees the regulation of the non-public (commercial) sector. State and interstate regulation is still being formed. There are several working groups in the European Union on the problems of AI regulation (you can read about this in my works), at the level of individual countries this problem is also relevant. Today, the state uses little AI. Mostly commerce and independent science are developing varieties of AI. It is difficult to control at this stage, but it is necessary due to technical regulations, licenses, control databases.
The advantages of this organization are to give ideas to all countries about how to legislate this issue in their internal laws and ways to address the obstacles that face this issue. From one country to another, and the conclusion of such agreements may negatively affect these differences in ideas, cultures and social customs and tries to unify them, contrary to the desire of the behaviour of the members of those countries.
Considering the pro and cons of A. I I think it is the right time to regulate it via an international agreement
Shirwan Mahmood Uniformity and guideline setting is certainly a worthy goal for international regulation.
In this article RAGHAV has been recognized as a co-author https://www.managingip.com/article/b1t0hfz2bytx44/exclusive-india-recognises-ai-as-co-author-of-copyrighted-artwork
Does this mean that at some point the AI machine could become the sole author, thereby denying any recognition of the human who created the AI machine? Who should create the rules for AI?
Adon Kumar AI as author under copyright and as inventor under patent is another interesting and evolving area of AI regulation. My article on “Property Ownership and the Legal Personhood of Artificial Intelligence” discusses the nexus between property ownership and legal personhood. (Article Property ownership and the legal personhood of artificial intelligence
)With IP, some jurisdictions are starting to grant AI limited property rights. It is worth keeping track of the developments in this area.
Although artificial intelligence is still very nascent, especially in developing countries, it is gradually gaining traction and poised to be the way to go in the very near future.
Since AI is an International phenomenon (already playing out in many facets of human interactions), there is a need for an international agreement to regulate it.
The Patent Law has exclusions. So some aspects of AI that are controversial on morality or policy grounds may fall under the exclusion clauses.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication