How divergent regulations can shape the future of innovation in the AI race
Denis Nalon
Revenue-Driven B2B Marketing Executive | 20+ Years Leading Growth Across IT & Services in EMEA & LATAM | AI enthusiast
I have recently read some articles and informed myself on the EU AI Act that entered into force on August 1 this year ?and will be effective in 2 years from that date.
Thinking about the current and future impact of AI in designing the future of every Industry, the regulatory landscape governing its development and deployment has become a critical battleground.
The recent EU AI Act has established a comprehensive framework, but how does it compare to approaches in other regions? And what are the implications for companies navigating this asymmetric global playing field?
The EU's AI Act aims to ensure the safe, ethical, and trustworthy use of AI technologies across Europe. At its core is a risk-based classification system that categorizes AI systems into four levels: unacceptable risk, high risk, limited risk, minimal risk.
This structure is key, as it determines the regulatory obligations for providers.
High-risk AI applications, such as those used in healthcare, transportation, and law enforcement, face stringent requirements around risk management, data governance, transparency, and human oversight. Meanwhile, lower-risk AI tools like spam filters encounter lighter touch regulations.
The Act also prohibits certain AI practices that can harm our privacy or are considered too invasive, such as social scoring systems and subliminal techniques that manipulate human behavior. This proactive stance sets the EU apart, as it seeks to get ahead of potentially dangerous AI applications rather than reacting to them.
What happens outside of the European Union? In contrast to the EU's comprehensive framework, other major economies have taken a more fragmented approach to AI governance.
The United States , for example, lacks a unified federal strategy, with various states introducing their own AI laws and regulations. While initiatives like President Biden's executive order on trustworthy AI aim to provide guidance, the absence of binding rules that are effective across the Nation has led to a patchwork of compliance requirements across the country. Here is a nice article from Robert Freedman? explaining more.
A similar approach can be observed? in ?the United Kingdom , an area that has been relatively slow in establishing formal AI regulations. The UK's approach emphasizes flexibility over prescriptive measures, which may be driven by a desire to avoid impeding innovation, but it also raises concerns about the UK potentially falling behind in establishing robust AI governance frameworks. An?Artificial Intelligence Bill?has been proposed, which aims to establish a framework for AI governance, potentially creating an AI Authority.
Looking to Asia, we see an even more diverse landscape. China 's Interim AI Measures focus on administrative regulation of generative AI services, reflecting the country's emphasis on state control. See this article on the approach ?and read more o the AI rules aimed to be set for 2024 in China ( Spoiler: still a lot to do here)
Japan 's regulatory approach to AI seeks to balance innovation with necessary safeguards through flexible guidelines and existing legal frameworks with an emphasis on human-centered principles. Likewise what happens in Singapore , ethical guidelines for AI are developed without mandatory compliance though.
Overall Generative AI have provided an impulse in regulations across the globe as it accelerated the mass adoption of such technologies in the direction of Risk mitigation, prohibition of certain AI practices and Compliance.
What are the the implications of this asymmetric global regulatory environment for the future of AI innovation and development?
First of all, the divergent approaches create uneven entry barriers for companies. Firms operating in the EU face higher compliance costs and administrative burdens to meet the AI Act's stringent requirements, potentially putting them at a disadvantage compared to competitors in less regulated regions. This could lead to delays in product launches and higher prices for consumers as companies pass on compliance costs.
However, the EU's comprehensive framework also presents a potential first-mover advantage. By establishing ethical and safety standards, European companies can position themselves as leaders in the global AI landscape, and be better considered by an increasingly conscious consumer base that prioritizes data protection and responsible technology. At least this is my personal hope!
Moreover, the reach of the EU AI Act goes beyond the EU trerritory. This means that non-European firms must also comply if their AI systems affect EU citizens, so this global influence could start to ?shape international standards and practices, to be considered by Extra EU companies around the world if they want to access the European market.
So how to navigate the Balance between Risks, Compliance, and Innovation? This is crucial for businesses operating in this complex global environment.
High-risk AI providers ( according to the EU AI Act) must invest heavily in building robust risk management systems, quality control protocols, and monitor their practices to meet the EU's regulatory standards. ?This can add significant operational expenses, still very difficult to estimate, but I’d not be surpised this to be in the 20% range.
Smaller companies, particularly startups and smaller businesses, may struggle to absorb these compliance costs, potentially inhibiting their ability to compete with larger, better-resourced players. ?Regulatory sandboxes , as proposed in the EU Act, could offer a partial solution by providing a controlled environment for testing innovative AI applications before full-scale deployment. If in the short term this could be considered as an additional burden in terms of time to market, in the longer run it could avoid costly drawbacks of non compliant applications and solutions.
At the same time, overly restrictive regulations risk slowing down innovation, as companies may become deterred from exploring new AI technologies due to fears of non-compliance or excessive scrutiny.
The right balance will require ongoing dialogue between policymakers and industry leaders to ensure that regulation can foster technological progress.
As the global AI race intensifies, EU's comprehensive framework may initially present challenges for companies. On the other side its potential to establish international standards and influence global practices could be a game-changer.
Hoping that European Policymakers don't fall in the trap of over regulation in my view EU is positioning itself as a global leader, setting the rules for the future development of artificial intelligence. In this scenario there is an opportunity for European companies to capitalize on this first-mover advantage and build a stronger reputation as trusted, responsible innovators and protectors of fundamental rights, making innovation even more sustainable and safeguarding their employees and consumers.