artificial intelligence - legal aspects of new technologies

To maintain the essential balance, I suggest sometimes taking a sceptical look at the tech rapture which we are increasingly swept up in. Then we will grasp that investing unheard-of amounts in the growth of AI and other digital technologies is not our most pressing need now.

For some time I’ve been bothered by the Solow paradox. This is the entirely counterintuitive connection observed since the 1980s between the growth of digital technologies and productivity. The economic data for the last 40 years show that the most advanced economies have not achieved a significant growth in productivity, despite the spread of computers, the internet, and various digital tools. Indeed, the productivity indicators during this period have been clearly lower than in periods preceding the digital revolution.

In its lofty aims and declarations, the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act clearly calls for human oversight of AI systems. But drilling down to the particular duties of entities using AI systems, the AI Act isn’t so clear. This article seeks to outline the key challenges in this context facing providers and users of AI systems.

EU regulations banning certain AI practices go into effect on 2 February 2025. Some institutions may assume that the bans only apply to extreme practices, which they would never be involved in. But the ban on using AI systems to assess the risk of that someone has committed a crime, or will commit a crime, shows that this is not the correct approach. A more in-depth analysis reveals that some market practices now considered standard, especially in financial services, may prove questionable once the bans enter into force. This is particularly true for monitoring of money-laundering risk and more broadly the risk of fraud.

Regardless of whether we see benefits or an existential threat in the latest AI technologies, the gravity of the challenges these technologies bring is undeniable. Over the past few decades, technological advances have far outpaced reflections on their possible consequences. This need not and should not be the case. That technologies are not solely a source of good is becoming apparent today as we begin to perceive the destructive impact that certain digital technologies have on our democracies, security, and mental health. In the face of recent technological advances, such as artificial intelligence, we have an opportunity to avoid mistakes and at least try to redirect the development of these technologies toward authentic benefits, while at the same time mitigating risks. In this context, I decided to sign an appeal to temporarily halt work on AI systems. I also encourage others to do so. Below I present the main rationale that guided me.

The world pins high hopes on the development of artificial intelligence systems. AI is expected to generate huge economic and social benefits across various aspects of life and sectors of the economy, including the environment, agriculture, healthcare, finances, taxes, mobility, and public administration.

The progressing development of AI systems is forcing the creation of appropriate legal frameworks, which on one hand should facilitate further growth of AI technologies but on the other hand should ensure adequate protection of persons using such systems and raise societal confidence in the operation of AI systems.

This time we address solutions from the front lines: devices for remote diagnostics which can improve effective detection of the coronavirus and also unburden the health service in other areas. These solutions can also serve as a proving ground for the regulatory approach to oversight of algorithms.

The immediate inspiration for writing this text was a solution from the company StethoMe presented at the DemoDay organised by the MIT Enterprise Forum CEE. It is a wireless stethoscope combined with an application allowing respiratory examination at a distance. The system also enables analysis of the collected data using an artificial intelligence algorithm. StethoMe is currently testing the possibility of using a remote stethoscope to examine symptoms caused by the coronavirus. Remote diagnostics could greatly improve the effectiveness and safety of our fight against the virus.

We could bet with great odds that one of the effects of the pandemic will be an increased interest in remote diagnostics solutions in the near future. Thus we should point to some of the special regulatory challenges these solutions will necessarily entail.