The unofficial place of the US on the following EU guidelines on synthetic intelligence –

The US is pushing for a narrower definition of synthetic intelligence, a broader exemption for general-purpose AI and individualized danger evaluation in AI legislation, in line with a doc obtained by EURACTIV.

The casual doc is dated October 2022 and was despatched to focused authorities officers in chosen EU capitals and to the European Fee. It follows a lot of the concepts and wording of the primary reactions despatched to EU lawmakers final March.

“A lot of our feedback are pushed by our rising cooperation on this space underneath the U.S.-EU Commerce and Know-how Council (TTC) and by considerations about whether or not the proposed laws will help or prohibit continued cooperation. “, says the doc.

The doc is a response to the progress made by the Czech Presidency of the Council of the EU on the AI ​​regulation final month. A spokesperson for the US Mission to the European Union declined EURACTIV’s request for remark.

Definition of AI

Whereas the People confirmed their help for adjustments made by the Czech presidency to make clear the definition of synthetic intelligence, they warned that the definition “nonetheless contains techniques that aren’t refined sufficient to deserve particular consideration inside the framework of AI-driven laws, like hand-crafted guidelines”. techniques primarily based on .

To keep away from over-inclusiveness, the non-paper suggests utilizing a narrower definition that captures the spirit of the one provided by the Group for Financial Co-operation and Growth (OECD) and clarifies what’s included and what’s not included.

Common Objective AI

The non-paper recommends having completely different legal responsibility guidelines for distributors of general-purpose AI techniques, massive fashions that may be tailored to carry out varied duties, and customers of these fashions who would possibly use them for purposes. excessive danger.

The Czech Presidency has proposed that the Fee subsequently adapts the obligations of the AI ​​Regulation to the specificities of general-purpose AI by means of an implementing act.

However, the American administration warns that the imposition of danger administration obligations on these suppliers may show to be “very cumbersome, technically troublesome and in some instances not possible”.

Moreover, the non-document goes in opposition to the concept general-purpose AI distributors ought to cooperate with their customers to assist them adjust to AI legislation, together with disclosure of confidential enterprise info or commerce secrets and techniques, however with applicable safeguards.

The primary distributors of general-purpose AI techniques are massive US firms like Microsoft and IBM.

Excessive danger techniques

By classifying a use case as excessive danger, the US administration has advocated for a extra individualized danger evaluation that ought to take note of menace sources, vulnerabilities, doubtless prevalence of hurt, and its significance.

In distinction, human rights ought to solely be assessed particularly contexts. In addition they argued for an appeals mechanism for firms that consider they’ve been wrongly labeled as excessive danger.

For worldwide cooperation, Washington needs Nationwide Institute of Requirements and Know-how (NIST) requirements to be another technique of compliance to self-assessments mandated by AI laws.

The non-paper additionally states that “in areas thought-about ‘excessive danger’ underneath the legislation, many US authorities companies are more likely to cease sharing relatively than danger tightly held strategies being disclosed extra broadly than they could be.” want”.

Whereas the doc expresses help for the Czech Presidency’s strategy of including an additional layer for the classification of high-risk techniques, it additionally warns that there might be inconsistencies with the regulatory regime of the Gadgets Regulation. medical.


The US is pushing for a extra substantial position for the AI ​​Council, which can collectively carry collectively the competent nationwide authorities of the EU, in comparison with the authority of every nation. In addition they suggest a everlasting sub-group inside the board of administrators with representatives of the stakeholders.

Because the Council will probably be accountable for advising on technical specs, harmonized requirements, and the event of pointers, Washington wish to see language permitting representatives of like-minded nations, no less than on this subgroup.

The European Fee has more and more closed the door to non-EU nations on standard-setting, whereas the US is pushing for extra bilateral cooperation.

Worldwide cooperation

In accordance with the non-paper, the regulation may forestall cooperation with third nations as a result of it covers public authorities outdoors the EU that have an effect on the block, until there’s a world settlement for the appliance. legislation and judicial cooperation.

The fear is that the US administration may cease cooperating with EU authorities in managing border management, which the AI ​​Act considers separate from legislation enforcement.

One other level raised is that the reference to “agreements” is taken into account too slim, as binding agreements on AI cooperation may take years to return to fruition. Even current legislation enforcement cooperation may endure because it additionally takes place outdoors of formal agreements.

As well as, the non-paper suggests a extra versatile exemption for the usage of biometric recognition applied sciences in instances the place there’s a “credible” menace, resembling a terrorist assault, as strict wording may forestall sensible cooperation to make sure the safety of main public occasions.

Supply code

In Could, the French presidency included the likelihood for market surveillance authorities to be granted full entry to the supply code of high-risk techniques when “vital” to evaluate their compliance with the AI ​​regulation.

For Washington, what’s “vital” should be higher outlined, an inventory of clear standards should be utilized to keep away from subjective and inconsistent selections within the EU, and the corporate should have the ability to enchantment the choice.

[Edited by Nathalie Weatherald]

Leave a Comment