British businesses told: Compliance with EU AI law will satisfy UK guidance
- Reference: 1708338611
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2024/02/19/uk_ai_compliance_eu/
- Source link:
The AI Act, which proposes a tiered approach to bans, restrictions, and safeguards in the introduction of AI, [1]got backing on February 13 from two key groups of lawmakers at the European Parliament. Members in both committees for justice and the single market ratified a provisional agreement launched [2]late last year .
In an effort to diverge from the EU following its departure from the world's largest political and trading bloc, the UK has launched "guidance" in dealing with challenges of introducing AI that will use existing laws together with a renewed focus from regulators, in what it calls a light-touch or "pro-innovation" approach based on outcomes.
[3]
"To deliver this outcomes-based approach, existing regulators will be responsible for interpreting and implementing the regulatory principles in their respective sectors and establishing clear guidelines on how to achieve these outcomes within a particular sector," [4]the guidance states [PDF].
[5]
[6]
However, since much of the activity of any AI development and deployment in the UK is likely to fall within the reach of the EU law, businesses will focus on complying with the rules from Brussels with the reasonable view that they would also fall within London's guidance at the same time.
Speaking to The Register , Linklaters technology lawyer Peter Church said the EU's AI Act has an "enormously broad scope."
[7]
"If you've got users in the EU, you're caught; if the output from your AI system is used in the EU, you're caught; if you put it on the market in the EU, you're caught. It would be quite difficult for most UK companies to conclude that they are not going to become subject to the EU AI Act," he said.
"It's quite likely that the process that they would follow to bring them to compliance under the EU AI Act would probably be sufficient to satisfy the requirements in the UK, and most other jurisdictions," the AI law expert told us.
Fear that the AI Act would be draconian may be unjustified, Church added. "What the commission has done through the AI Act is actually taking more of a deregulatory [approach] because what you don't want is different member states all independently generating their own AI laws."
[8]Trust us, says EU, our AI Act will make AI trustworthy by banning the nasty ones
[9]IT body proposes that AI pros get leashed and licensed to uphold ethics
[10]AI won't take our jobs and it might even save the middle class
[11]Quarter of polled Americans say they use AI to make them hotter in online dating
The UK might have very good reasons to hold back from regulating AI as it is a fast-changing technology. The development of the EU law faced amendments last year as it struggled to accommodate the development of generative AI, very much the darling of media and investors alike.
Pinsent Masons technology lawyer Sarah Cameron told The Register that the AI Act's significant extraterritorial scope would mean any UK providers who develop AI systems to put into service in the EU would be in scope, as would they would where output is used in the EU.
[12]
"It will also apply to importers and distributors placing AI systems in the EU market and manufacturers putting systems or products with AI systems on the EU market under their own name," she said.
"If businesses in UK prioritized compliance with EU AI Act, they should fall within the UK's AI strategy despite the primarily horizontal vs vertical approach respectively.
"They need to keep abreast of any sector specific regulation and guidance that may be released, particularly if this is put on a statutory footing, and should also watch that any targeted UK general purpose AI regulation that may follow aligns with the EU."
In the US, [13]California has started to propose legislation governing AI , covering the backyard of many big tech companies and a hotbed of AI startups. The federal government is yet to propose legislation.
Last year, the [14]UK hosted an AI Safety Summit in its big pitch for relevance in this burgeoning tech landscape. But with US and EU legislators now encroaching on the territory, the island nation may struggle to get its voice heard. ®
Get our [15]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/eu-lawmakers-back-political-deal-artificial-intelligence-rules-2024-02-13/
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2024/01/03/eu_ai_legistlation
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZdOJOBFYancHB1hCMqqNKAAAAIU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65ccf508c96cf3000c6a37a1/Introduction_to_AI_Assurance.pdf
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZdOJOBFYancHB1hCMqqNKAAAAIU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZdOJOBFYancHB1hCMqqNKAAAAIU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZdOJOBFYancHB1hCMqqNKAAAAIU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2023/12/11/eu_agrees_ai_act/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/15/bcs_ai_register_ethics/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/14/ai_wont_take_our_jobs/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/12/generative_ai_online_dating_boost/
[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/aiml&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZdOJOBFYancHB1hCMqqNKAAAAIU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/09/california_ai_regulation/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/03/ai_summit_safety_pacts/
[15] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Hold your horses!
@I am David Jones
"It could be fixed with a something like a statutory legal fiction along the lines of ‘businesses that meet the EU reqs are deemed to meet the UK reqs’. But that wasn’t the point of Brexit now, was it?"
Why? The EU wants more regulation, the UK less, what is wrong with that and that is the point of brexit. The UK doesnt have to do what the other government away from the country wants.
Re: Hold your horses!
But businesses that sell into the EU or offer services to it do have to follow EU law though.
So the UK government gets to enact performative divergence and trumpet about how light touch the UK is (as if that were a good thing) but to UK businesses it means absolutely nothing.
Was that the point of brexit?
Re: Hold your horses!
"trumpet about how light touch the UK is (as if that were a good thing)"
Yes, that was the point of Brexit. More trumpeting than a brass band (apart from the fact the brass bands use cornets rather than trumpets).
Re: Hold your horses!
@AC
"But businesses that sell into the EU or offer services to it do have to follow EU law though."
That is not amazing. If you sell into any country your product/service must follow the laws of the importer. That was something I repeatedly stated back when people were arguing leave/remain.
"So the UK government gets to enact performative divergence and trumpet about how light touch the UK is (as if that were a good thing) but to UK businesses it means absolutely nothing."
Why does it mean nothing? Lets say the EU regulates so hard that development moves out of the EU. The UK doesnt need to change anything to support the businesses now pivoting to other countries.
"Was that the point of brexit?"
To not have to apply foreign laws domestically. Business selling to the EU must meet EU requirements on said exports just as they meet the differing requirements to any country their product exports to. But domestically they are not so restricted.
Re: Hold your horses!
Lets say the EU regulates so hard that development moves out of the EU. The UK doesnt need to change anything to support the businesses now pivoting to other countries.
Hardly post-Brexit UK being the master of its own destiny, rather just waiting and hoping that EU countries fumble the ball.
Business selling to the EU must meet EU requirements on said exports just as they meet the differing requirements to any country their product exports to. But domestically they are not so restricted.
Why would they have two herds of cattle and treat one worse for domestic consumption, build two models of the same car with one being more dangerous for domestic buyers, or develop two sets of AIs with one lacking guardrails and selling all data belonging to domestic users? It makes no sense and it's cheaper just for UK businesses just to follow the higher standard (whoever has it, although given the direction of travel it's probably the EU) and sell to both markets.
Re: Hold your horses!
@AC
"Hardly post-Brexit UK being the master of its own destiny, rather just waiting and hoping that EU countries fumble the ball."
Eh? Nothing to do with that at all. Any business wishing to do business with another country must make sure their exports meet the legal requirements of the importing country. Doesnt matter if it is UK, US, EU, China or anywhere. Post brexit we dont need to apply EU requirements domestically. Its pretty simple and actually does point to "the UK being the master of its own destiny" if you wish to put it like that.
"Why would they have two herds of cattle and treat one worse for domestic consumption"
Its its only for domestic consumption or export to somewhere other than the EU, why apply EU requirements? Why would the smaller domestic providers apply large global business rules for other countries? I also note the huge mistake of saying treat worse or more dangerous, which is to make the flawed assumption that a rule is good because its a rule. A good rule can be good but a rule is not necessarily good.
"It makes no sense and it's cheaper just for UK businesses just to follow the higher standard (whoever has it, although given the direction of travel it's probably the EU) and sell to both markets."
Assuming the trade is with the EU and the domestic market is small enough to prefer export market rules. Also assumes no domestic models that may work better.
Here is an example of rule stupidity. It takes the same amount of energy to boil a kettle (excluding losses from slower boiling). Should the EU decide its a good idea to limit the power of a kettle they are only increasing the amount of time to boil water, not making it more efficient. Add the loss of slower boiling and the rule would be less energy efficient. The UK could ditch said rules and have working kettles for domestic and export to non-stupid countries but export only inefficient ones for the EU if a business so wished.
Re: Hold your horses!
"Should the EU decide its a good idea to limit the power of a kettle"
Spot the straw man.
Re: Hold your horses!
@Doctor Syntax
"Spot the straw man."
Only straw if not real. That it was a consideration at one point Made for easy pickings as to why getting out was a good idea
Re: Hold your horses!
Re the kettle: yes, on the face of it it is daft. Is it actually a thing or just a proposal?
But I always wondered if the Brits would along with it because it would smooth the corrie-st-ad-break-cup-of-tea electricity demand spike. Which was (is?) a thing.
But I can’t imagine that being an issue for any other eu country, and presumably it is dropping off here as the use of streaming services increases.
Re: Hold your horses!
@I am David Jones
"Re the kettle: yes, on the face of it it is daft. Is it actually a thing or just a proposal?"
I am not certain but I think the stupidity died when we left. It was too easy fodder to demonstrate the state of governance from the EU.
"But I can’t imagine that being an issue for any other eu country"
That is actually a solid argument for leave. In fact one of the primary reasons
Re: Hold your horses!
"Hardly post-Brexit UK being the master of its own destiny, rather just waiting and hoping that EU countries fumble the ball."
As carried out by the world leading ball fumblers.
Having written that it's just occurred to me that that might have been behind the whole thing. They're always going on about Britain being world leaders in whatever they realised that this was something in which they could really remonstrate they were world leaders.
Re: To not have to apply foreign laws domestically.
When the UK was part of the EU we had some say in what EU laws were and they were not foreign laws because we were part of the EU.
Now we have no say over what EU laws are, they are foreign laws, we have to obey them to access the larger market and there is no point going to the expense of creating a separate product specialised for a small market.
Re: To not have to apply foreign laws domestically.
Back in the early 70's I was driving into the EU with computerized EKG health industry products from the UK company I was working for and we were happy to comply with EU laws that stated what colours the AC power cable wires had to be, virtually nothing else we did was regulated.
Before BREXIT the EU liked us (my visits were popular), and once BREXIT occurred the UK had a significant influence in the EU. But now we're just a good example of how effective it is to be in the EU.
Re: To not have to apply foreign laws domestically.
@Flocke Kroes
"When the UK was part of the EU we had some say in what EU laws were and they were not foreign laws because we were part of the EU."
And now they are foreign laws. Back then they were still foreign laws of an organisation we joined.
"Now we have no say over what EU laws are"
Should we have say in US law? China's laws? Other countries? Maybe we should invade some countries to enforce our laws?
"we have to obey them to access the larger market"
No we dont. We do as we wish. If some business needs to apply export laws they can. If domestic or export elsewhere they do things correctly for that.
Re: Hold your horses!
The EU wants more regulation, the UK less,
Not exactly. Tories UK wants less regulation for multinational corporations, while burdening SMEs with as much regulation as they can.
This kind of shows it - big corporation with access to legal teams (which costs peanuts in comparison to their revenue), will safely ignore this guidance, while small business will spend time and money on it - becoming less competitive.
Re: Hold your horses!
@elsergiovolador
"Not exactly. Tories UK wants less regulation for multinational corporations, while burdening SMEs with as much regulation as they can."
Not just the Tories. We do need better options to vote for.
Re: Hold your horses!
"We do need better options to vote for."
We most certainly do.
Re: Hold your horses!
"The EU wants more regulation, the UK less, what is wrong with that and that is the point of brexit."
Part true. Not necessarily more or less. Just different.
The problem with stuff like this that is supplied globally is that it has to comply everywhere you do business (or maybe even just let people look at your content) - the EU, US, China....
There are already American websites that block people in the EU or the UK. I think this is where things will go - different products in different markets.
Re: Hold your horses!
"There are already American websites that block people in the EU or the UK."
If it's not from the US it must be from some tinpot little commie place.
Hot Air
Last year, the UK hosted an AI Safety Summit in its big pitch for relevance in this burgeoning tech landscape.
In my opinion that was typical Sunak's daft idea to show that his useless government is doing something and to get a photo with Elon Moscow. His detached from reality brain probably thought it will help him with the dwindling polls.
The money will make the decision.
If you need to sell to EU or have data that has originated in EU then you'll end up complying with the EU regs anyway.
UK gov might want to flap around and make noises about being seperate from Europe and able to make our own rules (Brexit means Brexit and other such sweaty faced drivel) but business will make up its own mind and probably plump for the EU rules since it's likely to give them pretty much global scope through one compliance policy.
None of this will stop Big Tech from stealing data and doing what they like as usual.
Hold your horses!
All I read were weasel words, meeting the EU reqs “should” or “would probably” be ok in the UK. That doth butter no parsnip. A business would imo be foolish to make the assumption.
It could be fixed with a something like a statutory legal fiction along the lines of ‘businesses that meet the EU reqs are deemed to meet the UK reqs’. But that wasn’t the point of Brexit now, was it?