6.12.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 465/89 Tuesday 3 May 2022
134.
Specifies that the classification of AI systems as ‘high-risk’ should be based on their concrete use and the context, nature, probability, severity and potential irreversibility of the harm that can be expected to occur in breach of fundamental rights and health and safety rules as laid down in Union law; stresses that this classification should be accompanied by guidance and the promotion of the exchange of best practices for AI developers; stresses that the right to privacy must always be respected and that AI developers should guarantee full compliance with the rules on data protection;
135.
Underlines that AI systems that are likely to interact with or otherwise affect children must take their rights and vulnerabilities into account and meet the highest available standards of safety, security and privacy by design and default;
136.
Notes that the environments in which AI systems operate may differ in a business-to-business (B2B) environment compared to a business-to-consumer (B2C) environment; points out that consumer rights need to be legally protected through consumer protection legislation; stresses that while companies can solve liability and other legal challenges quickly and cost-effectively by contractual means with business partners directly, legislation may be necessary to protect smaller businesses from market power abuse by dominant actors through commercial or technological lock-in, barriers to market entry or asymmetric information problems; highlights that there is also a necessity to take into account the needs of SMEs and start-ups with complex requirements, to avoid putting them at a disadvantage compared to larger companies, which have the resources to maintain sizeable legal and compliance departments;
137.
Underlines the need to apply a principles-based approach to open ethical questions raised by new technological possibilities resulting from the sale and use of AI applications, including through the use of fundamental, mandatory principles such as the non-maleficence principle, the principle of respecting human dignity and fundamental rights, and the protection of the democratic process; notes that good practices in AI development such as human-centric AI, responsible governance and the principles of transparency and explainability, as well as principles of sustainable AI that are fully aligned with the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, are other important components in shaping the AI economy;
138.
Acknowledges that it is not always possible to completely ‘de-bias’ AI algorithms as the ideal objective of error-free data is very difficult or near impossible to achieve; notes that even an AI system that has been tested will inevitably encounter real world scenarios that might produce biased results when deployed in a setting that differs from the composition of its training and testing data; stresses that the EU should strive to improve the transparency of data sets and algorithms, cooperate very closely with AI developers to counterbalance and reduce structural societal biases and consider mandatory human rights due diligence rules at an early stage of development;
139.
Elaborates that meaningful transparency or explainability obligations for AI systems, while helpful in many cases, may not be possible to implement in every instance; notes that intellectual property rights and trade secrets must be protected from illegal practices such as industrial espionage;
140.
States that the legislative framework on intellectual property must continue to incentivise and protect AI innovators by granting them patents as a reward for developing and publishing their creations; finds that existing laws are mostly future-proof, but proposes certain adjustments, including the integration of open source elements, as well as the use of public procurement to mandate, where appropriate, open source software for AI solutions; proposes new forms of patent licensing to ensure that tools are available to regions and initiatives that could not otherwise afford them;
141.
Considers that obligatory ex ante risk self-assessments based on clear rules and standards, as well as data protection impact assessments, complemented by third-party conformity assessments with relevant and appropriate CE marking, combined with ex post enforcement by market surveillance, could be useful to ensure that AI systems on the market are safe and trustworthy; believes that in order to prevent SMEs from being pushed out of the market, standards and guidance on complying with AI legislation should be developed with the close involvement of small businesses, internationally aligned to the greatest extent possible and available free of charge;