@article{BrysonHaataja, author = {Bryson, Joanna and Haataja, Meeri}, title = {The European Parliament's AI Regulation: Should We Call It Progress?}, series = {Amicus Curiae}, volume = {4, Series 2}, journal = {Amicus Curiae}, number = {3}, doi = {10.14296/ac.v4i3.5612}, pages = {707 -- 718}, abstract = {The European Union (EU) has been leading the world with its influential digital regulation. However, the EU's legislative process is sufficiently complex and careful that some national legislation clearly influenced by the EU's AI Regulation is already in place in other countries, before the law has even been finalized in the EU. Meanwhile, other states and regions are just beginning to develop AI policy. For both the EU and such others, we here describe the outcomes of the first round of legislative action by one of the EU's two legislative bodies, the European Parliament, in terms of modifying the Artificial Intelligence Act. The Parliament has introduced a number of changes we consider to be enormously important, some in a very good way, and some in a very bad way. At stake is whether the AI Act really brings the power and strength of product law to continuously scale improved practice on products in the EU with intelligent components, or whether the law becomes window-dressing aimed only at attacking a few elite actors post hoc. We describe here the EU process, the changes and our recommendations.}, language = {en} } @techreport{DariusStockmannBrysonetal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Darius, Philipp and Stockmann, Daniela and Bryson, Joanna and Cingolani, Luciana and Griffin, Rachel and Hammerschmid, Gerhard and Kupi, Maximilian and Mones, Haytham and Munzert, Simon and Riordan, R{\´o}n{\´a}n and Stockreiter, Simona}, title = {Implementing Data Access of the Digital Services Act: Collaboration of European Digital Service Coordinators and Researchers in Building Strong Oversight over Social Media Platforms}, doi = {10.48462/opus4-4947}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-49479}, pages = {11}, abstract = {The EU Digital Service Acts signals a move away from self-regulation towards co-regulation of social media platforms within the European Union. To address online harms and rising platform power the DSA clarifies responsibilities of platforms and outlines a new technology regulatory framework to increase oversight. One key oversight instrument constitutes Article 40 of the DSA, which lays out data access for vetted researchers, who add value to regulators and the broader public as creators of knowledge, educators, advisors, innovators, and watchdogs. Currently, the EU Commission and national governments make important decisions regarding Digital Service Coordinators (DSCs) that play a key role in implementation. Based on expertise on European public administration and political science we lay out key challenges and success factors of DSCs that will play a role in promoting successful cooperation between DSCs and researchers. We provide three recommendations: First, we recommend to strengthen transfer of scientific knowledge into policy-making by processing publicly accessible publications within public administrative bodies. To this end, capacities of DSCs need to be increased. In addition, we also point towards the database of vetted researchers collected by the Board of DSCs as important resource in order to strengthen knowledge transfer. Second, the DSC network requires agile institutions with fast response time in order to enable researchers to play a constructive role in implementation. This also includes institutional procedures between DSCs and the Intermediary Body and Data Protection Agencies. To avoid delay in implementation agile institution-building needs to start now. Finally, institutional safeguards will help to avoid strategic choice of companies of the DSC of establishment. At the same time, the Irish DSC's capacity should be strengthened compared to other national DSCs since most large intermediary services providers have their European headquarters in Ireland.}, language = {en} } @article{BaumBrysonDignumetal., author = {Baum, Kevin and Bryson, Joanna and Dignum, Frank and Dignum, Virginia and Grobelnik, Marko and Hoos, Holger and Irgens, Morten and Lukowicz, Paul and Muller, Catelijne and Rossi, Francesca and Shawe-Taylor, John and Theodorou, Andreas and Vinuesa, Ricardo}, title = {From Fear to Action: AI Governance and Opportunities for All}, series = {Frontiers in Computer Science}, volume = {5}, journal = {Frontiers in Computer Science}, doi = {10.3389/fcomp.2023.1210421}, language = {en} } @article{BackovskyBryson, author = {Backovsky, David and Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Going Nuclear? Precedents and Options for the Transnational Governance of AI}, series = {Horizons}, journal = {Horizons}, number = {Summer 2023, No.24}, issn = {2406-0402}, pages = {84 -- 95}, language = {en} } @article{Bryson, author = {Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Human Experience and AI Regulation: What European Union Law Brings to Digital Technology Ethics}, series = {Weizenbaum Journal of the Digital Society}, volume = {3}, journal = {Weizenbaum Journal of the Digital Society}, number = {3}, issn = {2748-5625}, doi = {10.34669/WI.WJDS/3.3.8}, abstract = {Although nearly all artificial intelligence (AI) regulatory documents now reference the importance of human-centering digital systems, we frequently see AI ethics itself reduced to limited concerns, such as bias and, sometimes, power consumption. Although their impacts on human lives and our ecosystem render both of these absolutely critical, the ethical and regulatory challenges and obligations relating to AI do not stop there. Joseph Weizenbaum described the potential abuse of intelligent systems to make inhuman cruelty and acts of war more emotionally accessible to human operators. But more than this, he highlighted the need to solve the social issues that facilitate violent acts of war, and the immense potential the use of computers offers in this context. The present article reviews how the EU's digital regulatory legislation—well enforced—could help us address such concerns. I begin by reviewing why the EU leads in this area, considering the legitimacy of its actions both regionally and globally. I then review the legislation already protecting us—the General Data Protection Regulation, the Digital Services Act, and the Digital Markets Act—and consider their roles in achieving Weizenbaum's goals. Finally, I consider the almost-promulgated AI Act before concluding with a brief discussion of the potential for future enforcement and global regulatory cooperation.}, language = {en} }