Comments about the article in Nature: Conflicting vision for AI Regulation

Following is a discussion about this article in Nature Vol 620 10 August 2023, by Matthew Hutson
To study the full text select this link: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02491-y5

• The text in italics is copied from the article
  
• Immediate followed by some comments
  

In the last paragraph I explain my own opinion.

Contents

• 1. For EU: To regulate by Risk
• 2. A 'good start'
• 3. The US: 'the appearance of activity'
• 4. China: keeping societal control
• 5. Global uncertainties
• 6. Hard to enforce?

Reflection

• Reflection 1 -
• Reflection 2 -
• Reflection 3 -

Introduction

1. For EU: To regulate by Risk

3. The US: 'the appearance of activity'

The paper says that automated systems should be safe and effective, non-discriminatory, protective of people’s privacy and transparent: people should be notified when a system makes a decision for or about them, be told how the system operates and be able to opt out or have a human intervene.

Such rules are very broad and open for many interpretations.
What means privacy? etc

“Philosophically, [the blueprint and the EU’s AI Act] are very similar in identifying the goals of AI regulation: ensuring that systems are safe and effective, non-discriminatory and transparent,” says Suresh Venkatasubramanian, etc

That is correct, but this remark does not solve the issue, that goal is not unambiguous.

In July, seven US companies — Amazon etc — met with President Joe Biden and announced that they would implement safeguards such as testing their products, reporting limitations and working on watermarks that might help to identify AI-generated material.

All of that Making someone happy with a dead sparrow

4. China: keeping societal control

5. Global uncertainties

6. Hard to enforce?

Reflection 1 - AI versus Digital Automation.

Reflection 2

Back to my home page Index
Back to Nature comments Nature Index