Globally significant’ AI Act must recognise those affected by AI

The Ada Lovelace Institute is an independent research institute, based in
the UK and Brussels, with a mission to ensure data and AI work for people
and society.

Centring those affected by AI, Ada recommends enshrining legal rights
for complaint and collective action and giving civil society a voice
within standards setting.

Ada recommends expanding and reshaping the role of risk in the Act.
Risk should be based on ‘reasonably foreseeable’ purpose and extended
beyond individual rights and safety, to also include systemic and
environmental risks. *

The Ada Lovelace Institute, has today published a series of proposed amendments to the
EU AI Act aimed at recognising and empowering those affected by AI,
expanding and reshaping the meaning of ‘risk’ and accurately reflecting the
nature of AI systems and their lifecycle.

As the first comprehensive attempt in the world to regulate AI, the Act has
the potential to become a global standard in the regulation of AI and serve
as inspiration for other legislative initiatives around the world.

Ada recommends empowering people by building ‘affected persons’ into the
Act and enshrining their legal rights for complaint and collective action.
The voice of civil society should also be increased by building
representation for civil society organisations into the EU
standards-setting process, which to date has had to tackle technical rather
than societal issues.

Risk forms the foundation of the AI Act, and Ada is proposing changes to
both how risk is determined in the Act and to its categories of risk. The
amendments recommend establishing a process for adding new types of AI to
the ‘high risk’ list and assessing risk based on the ‘reasonably
foreseeable purpose’ of AI systems, rather than their ‘intended purpose’.

Biometric categorisation and emotion recognition should be added to the
'unacceptable risk' list in Article 5. If evidence were put forward to
demonstrate benefits of these technologies, Ada says they must pass a
‘reinforced proportionality test’, and if they do pass this, used only in
exceptional circumstances.

Risk is primarily understood in the Act in terms of the risks of AI systems
to individual rights and safety. However, Ada argues that the Act should
include broader systemic and environmental risks, which cannot simply be
understood in terms of risks to individuals.

Fundamental to the effectiveness of the Act is the extent to which it
captures the nature of complex and adaptable AI systems as they are used in
practice. Several of Ada’s recommendations are aimed at ensuring that the
Act appropriately reflects and relates to the reality of how AI systems are
developed, deployed and adapted.

For example, under the current proposals, high-risk systems only face *ex
ante *requirements, meaning they apply to AI systems before deployment.
This reflects a product safety approach to AI, which fails to capture how
AI systems are used in the world. To address this Ada recommends that all
high-risk systems are subjected to regular *ex post* ‘impact evaluations’.

*Alexandru Circiumaru, European Public Policy Lead, said: *

*‘Regulating AI is a difficult legal challenge, so the EU should be
congratulated for being the first to come out with a comprehensive
framework.*

*‘However, the current proposals can and should be improved, and there is
an opportunity for EU policymakers to significantly strengthen the scope
and effectiveness of this landmark legislation.*

*‘We want to see changes to the Act that recognise those affected by AI
systems, expand the EU’s concept of ‘risk’ and deal with the reality of AI,
which cannot be regulated as a product or service in the traditional
sense.’*

*Imogen Parker, Associate Director, said: *

*‘The EU AI Act, once adopted, will be the first comprehensive AI
regulatory framework in the world. This makes it a globally significant
piece of legislation with historic impact far beyond its legal
jurisdiction. *

*‘The stakes for everyone are high with AI, which is why it is so vital the
EU gets this right and makes sure the Act truly works for people and
society.’*

The policy briefing builds on an expert legal opinion commissioned by the
Ada Lovelace Institute and authored by Professor Lilian Edwards, a leading
academic in the field of internet law, which addresses substantial
questions about AI regulation in Europe and looks towards a global
standard.

Share this article: