laredoyin/eu-ai-act huggingface dataset:
Under certain conditions, rapid availability of innovative technologies may be crucial for health and safety of  persons, the protection of the environment and climate change and for society as a whole. It is thus appropriate that  under exceptional reasons of public security or protection of life and health of natural persons, environmental  protection and the protection of key industrial and infrastructural assets, market surveillance authorities could  authorise the placing on the market or the putting into service of AI systems which have not undergone  a conformity assessment. In duly justified situations, as provided for in this Regulation, law enforcement authorities  or civil protection authorities may put a specific high-risk AI system into service without the authorisation of the  market surveillance authority, provided that such authorisation is requested during or after the use without undue  delay.
In order to facilitate the work of the Commission and the Member States in the AI field as well as to increase the  transparency towards the public, providers of high-risk AI systems other than those related to products falling within  the scope of relevant existing Union harmonisation legislation, as well as providers who consider that an AI system  listed in the high-risk use cases in an annex to this Regulation is not high-risk on the basis of a derogation, should be  required to register themselves and information about their AI system in an EU database, to be established and  managed by the Commission. Before using an AI system listed in the high-risk use cases in an annex to this  Regulation, deployers of high-risk AI systems that are public authorities, agencies or bodies, should register  themselves in such database and select the system that they envisage to use. Other deployers should be entitled to do  so voluntarily. This section of the EU database should be publicly accessible, free of charge, the information should  be easily navigable, understandable and machine-readable. The EU database should also be user-friendly, for example  by providing search functionalities, including through keywords, allowing the general public to find relevant  information to be submitted upon the registration of high-risk AI systems and on the use case of high-risk AI  systems, set out in an annex to this Regulation, to which the high-risk AI systems correspond. Any substantial  modification of high-risk AI systems should also be registered in the EU database. For high-risk AI systems in the  area of law enforcement, migration, asylum and border control management, the registration obligations should be  fulfilled in a secure non-public section of the EU database. Access to the secure non-public section should be strictly  limited to the Commission as well as to market surveillance authorities with regard to their national section of that  database. High-risk AI systems in the area of critical infrastructure should only be registered at national level. The  Commission should be the controller of the EU database, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725. In order  to ensure the full functionality of the EU database, when deployed, the procedure for setting the database should  include the development of functional specifications by the Commission and an independent audit report. The  Commission should take into account cybersecurity risks when carrying out its tasks as data controller on the EU  database. In order to maximise the availability and use of the EU database by the public, the EU database, including  the information made available through it, should comply with requirements under the Directive (EU) 2019/882.
Certain AI systems intended to interact with natural persons or to generate content may pose specific risks of  impersonation or deception irrespective of whether they qualify as high-risk or not. In certain circumstances, the use  of these systems should therefore be subject to specific transparency obligations without prejudice to the  requirements and obligations for high-risk AI systems and subject to targeted exceptions to take into account the  special need of law enforcement. In particular, natural persons should be notified that they are interacting with an AI  system, unless this is obvious from the point of view of a natural person who is reasonably well-informed, observant  and circumspect taking into account the circumstances and the context of use. When implementing that obligation,  the characteristics of natural persons belonging to vulnerable groups due to their age or disability should be taken  into account to the extent the AI system is intended to interact with those groups as well. Moreover, natural persons  should be notified when they are exposed to AI systems that, by processing their biometric data, can identify or infer  the emotions or intentions of those persons or assign them to specific categories. Such specific categories can relate  to aspects such as sex, age, hair colour, eye colour, tattoos, personal traits, ethnic origin, personal preferences and  interests. Such information and notifications should be provided in accessible formats for persons with disabilities.
A variety of AI systems can generate large quantities of synthetic content that becomes increasingly hard for humans  to distinguish from human-generated and authentic content. The wide availability and increasing capabilities of  those systems have a significant impact on the integrity and trust in the information ecosystem, raising new risks of  misinformation and manipulation at scale, fraud, impersonation and consumer deception. In light of those impacts,  the fast technological pace and the need for new methods and techniques to trace origin of information, it is  appropriate to require providers of those systems to embed technical solutions that enable marking in a machine  readable format and detection that the output has been generated or manipulated by an AI system and not a human.  Such techniques and methods should be sufficiently reliable, interoperable, effective and robust as far as this is  technically feasible, taking into account available techniques or a combination of such techniques, such as  watermarks, metadata identifications, cryptographic methods for proving provenance and authenticity of content,  logging methods, fingerprints or other techniques, as may be appropriate. When implementing this obligation,  providers should also take into account the specificities and the limitations of the different types of content and the  relevant technological and market developments in the field, as reflected in the generally acknowledged state of the  art. Such techniques and methods can be implemented at the level of the AI system or at the level of the AI model,  including general-purpose AI models generating content, thereby facilitating fulfilment of this obligation by the  downstream provider of the AI system. To remain proportionate, it is appropriate to envisage that this marking  obligation should not cover AI systems performing primarily an assistive function for standard editing or AI systems  not substantially altering the input data provided by the deployer or the semantics thereof.
Further to the technical solutions employed by the providers of the AI system, deployers who use an AI system to  generate or manipulate image, audio or video content that appreciably resembles existing persons, objects, places,  entities or events and would falsely appear to a person to be authentic or truthful (deep fakes), should also clearly  and distinguishably disclose that the content has been artificially created or manipulated by labelling the AI output  accordingly and disclosing its artificial origin. Compliance with this transparency obligation should not be  interpreted as indicating that the use of the AI system or its output impedes the right to freedom of expression and  the right to freedom of the arts and sciences guaranteed in the Charter, in particular where the content is part of an  evidently creative, satirical, artistic, fictional or analogous work or programme, subject to appropriate safeguards for  the rights and freedoms of third parties. In those cases, the transparency obligation for deep fakes set out in this  Regulation is limited to disclosure of the existence of such generated or manipulated content in an appropriate  manner that does not hamper the display or enjoyment of the work, including its normal exploitation and use, while  maintaining the utility and quality of the work. In addition, it is also appropriate to envisage a similar disclosure  obligation in relation to AI-generated or manipulated text to the extent it is published with the purpose of informing  the public on matters of public interest unless the AI-generated content has undergone a process of human review or  editorial control and a natural or legal person holds editorial responsibility for the publication of the content.
Without prejudice to the mandatory nature and full applicability of the transparency obligations, the Commission  may also encourage and facilitate the drawing up of codes of practice at Union level to facilitate the effective  implementation of the obligations regarding the detection and labelling of artificially generated or manipulated  content, including to support practical arrangements for making, as appropriate, the detection mechanisms  accessible and facilitating cooperation with other actors along the value chain, disseminating content or checking its  authenticity and provenance to enable the public to effectively distinguish AI-generated content.
The obligations placed on providers and deployers of certain AI systems in this Regulation to enable the detection  and disclosure that the outputs of those systems are artificially generated or manipulated are particularly relevant to  facilitate the effective implementation of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065. This applies in particular as regards the  obligations of providers of very large online platforms or very large online search engines to identify and mitigate  systemic risks that may arise from the dissemination of content that has been artificially generated or manipulated,  in particular the risk of the actual or foreseeable negative effects on democratic processes, civic discourse and  electoral processes, including through disinformation. The requirement to label content generated by AI systems  under this Regulation is without prejudice to the obligation in Article 16(6) of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 for  providers of hosting services to process notices on illegal content received pursuant to Article 16(1) of that  Regulation and should not influence the assessment and the decision on the illegality of the specific content. That  assessment should be performed solely with reference to the rules governing the legality of the content.
AI is a rapidly developing family of technologies that requires regulatory oversight and a safe and controlled space  for experimentation, while ensuring responsible innovation and integration of appropriate safeguards and risk  mitigation measures. To ensure a legal framework that promotes innovation, is future-proof and resilient to  disruption, Member States should ensure that their national competent authorities establish at least one AI  regulatory sandbox at national level to facilitate the development and testing of innovative AI systems under strict  regulatory oversight before these systems are placed on the market or otherwise put into service. Member States  could also fulfil this obligation through participating in already existing regulatory sandboxes or establishing jointly  a sandbox with one or more Member States’ competent authorities, insofar as this participation provides equivalent  level of national coverage for the participating Member States. AI regulatory sandboxes could be established in  physical, digital or hybrid form and may accommodate physical as well as digital products. Establishing authorities  should also ensure that the AI regulatory sandboxes have the adequate resources for their functioning, including  financial and human resources.
This Regulation should provide the legal basis for the providers and prospective providers in the AI regulatory  sandbox to use personal data collected for other purposes for developing certain AI systems in the public interest  within the AI regulatory sandbox, only under specified conditions, in accordance with Article 6(4) and Article 9(2),  point (g), of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, and Articles 5, 6 and 10 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, and without  prejudice to Article 4(2) and Article 10 of Directive (EU) 2016/680. All other obligations of data controllers and  rights of data subjects under Regulations (EU) 2016/679 and (EU) 2018/1725 and Directive (EU) 2016/680 remain  applicable. In particular, this Regulation should not provide a legal basis in the meaning of Article 22(2), point (b) of  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Article 24(2), point (b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725. Providers and prospective  providers in the AI regulatory sandbox should ensure appropriate safeguards and cooperate with the competent  authorities, including by following their guidance and acting expeditiously and in good faith to adequately mitigate  any identified significant risks to safety, health, and fundamental rights that may arise during the development,  testing and experimentation in that sandbox.
In order to accelerate the process of development and the placing on the market of the high-risk AI systems listed in  an annex to this Regulation, it is important that providers or prospective providers of such systems may also benefit  from a specific regime for testing those systems in real-world conditions, without participating in an AI regulatory  sandbox. However, in such cases, taking into account the possible consequences of such testing on individuals, it  should be ensured that appropriate and sufficient guarantees and conditions are introduced by this Regulation for  providers or prospective providers. Such guarantees should include, inter alia, requesting informed consent of  natural persons to participate in testing in real-world conditions, with the exception of law enforcement where the  seeking of informed consent would prevent the AI system from being tested. Consent of subjects to participate in  such testing under this Regulation is distinct from, and without prejudice to, consent of data subjects for the  processing of their personal data under the relevant data protection law. It is also important to minimise the risks  and enable oversight by competent authorities and therefore require prospective providers to have a real-world  testing plan submitted to competent market surveillance authority, register the testing in dedicated sections in the EU  database subject to some limited exceptions, set limitations on the period for which the testing can be done and  require additional safeguards for persons belonging to certain vulnerable groups, as well as a written agreement  defining the roles and responsibilities of prospective providers and deployers and effective oversight by competent  personnel involved in the real-world testing. Furthermore, it is appropriate to envisage additional safeguards to  ensure that the predictions, recommendations or decisions of the AI system can be effectively reversed and  disregarded and that personal data is protected and is deleted when the subjects have withdrawn their consent to  participate in the testing without prejudice to their rights as data subjects under the Union data protection law. As  regards transfer of data, it is also appropriate to envisage that data collected and processed for the purpose of testing  in real-world conditions should be transferred to third countries only where appropriate and applicable safeguards  under Union law are implemented, in particular in accordance with bases for transfer of personal data under Union  law on data protection, while for non-personal data appropriate safeguards are put in place in accordance with  Union law, such as Regulations (EU) 2022/868 (42) and (EU) 2023/2854 (43) of the European Parliament and of the  Council.
To ensure that AI leads to socially and environmentally beneficial outcomes, Member States are encouraged to  support and promote research and development of AI solutions in support of socially and environmentally  beneficial outcomes, such as AI-based solutions to increase accessibility for persons with disabilities, tackle  socio-economic inequalities, or meet environmental targets, by allocating sufficient resources, including public and  Union funding, and, where appropriate and provided that the eligibility and selection criteria are fulfilled,  considering in particular projects which pursue such objectives. Such projects should be based on the principle of  interdisciplinary cooperation between AI developers, experts on inequality and non-discrimination, accessibility,  consumer, environmental, and digital rights, as well as academics.
In order to minimise the risks to implementation resulting from lack of knowledge and expertise in the market as  well as to facilitate compliance of providers, in particular SMEs, including start-ups, and notified bodies with their  obligations under this Regulation, the AI-on-demand platform, the European Digital Innovation Hubs and the  testing and experimentation facilities established by the Commission and the Member States at Union or national  level should contribute to the implementation of this Regulation. Within their respective mission and fields of  competence, the AI-on-demand platform, the European Digital Innovation Hubs and the testing and  experimentation Facilities are able to provide in particular technical and scientific support to providers and  notified bodies.
Moreover, in light of the very small size of some operators and in order to ensure proportionality regarding costs of  innovation, it is appropriate to allow microenterprises to fulfil one of the most costly obligations, namely to  establish a quality management system, in a simplified manner which would reduce the administrative burden and  the costs for those enterprises without affecting the level of protection and the need for compliance with the  requirements for high-risk AI systems. The Commission should develop guidelines to specify the elements of the  quality management system to be fulfilled in this simplified manner by microenterprises.
It is appropriate that the Commission facilitates, to the extent possible, access to testing and experimentation  facilities to bodies, groups or laboratories established or accredited pursuant to any relevant Union harmonisation  legislation and which fulfil tasks in the context of conformity assessment of products or devices covered by that  Union harmonisation legislation. This is, in particular, the case as regards expert panels, expert laboratories and  reference laboratories in the field of medical devices pursuant to Regulations (EU) 2017/745 and (EU) 2017/746.
This Regulation should establish a governance framework that both allows to coordinate and support the  application of this Regulation at national level, as well as build capabilities at Union level and integrate stakeholders  in the field of AI. The effective implementation and enforcement of this Regulation require a governance framework  that allows to coordinate and build up central expertise at Union level. The AI Office was established by Commission  Decision (45) and has as its mission to develop Union expertise and capabilities in the field of AI and to contribute to  the implementation of Union law on AI. Member States should facilitate the tasks of the AI Office with a view to  support the development of Union expertise and capabilities at Union level and to strengthen the functioning of the  digital single market. Furthermore, a Board composed of representatives of the Member States, a scientific panel to  integrate the scientific community and an advisory forum to contribute stakeholder input to the implementation of  this Regulation, at Union and national level, should be established. The development of Union expertise and capabilities should also include making use of existing resources and expertise, in particular through synergies with structures built up in the context of the Union level enforcement of other law and synergies with related initiatives at Union level, such as the EuroHPC Joint Undertaking and the AI testing and experimentation facilities under the Digital Europe Programme.
In order to facilitate a smooth, effective and harmonised implementation of this Regulation a Board should be  established. The Board should reflect the various interests of the AI eco-system and be composed of representatives  of the Member States. The Board should be responsible for a number of advisory tasks, including issuing opinions,  recommendations, advice or contributing to guidance on matters related to the implementation of this Regulation,  including on enforcement matters, technical specifications or existing standards regarding the requirements  established in this Regulation and providing advice to the Commission and the Member States and their national  competent authorities on specific questions related to AI. In order to give some flexibility to Member States in the  designation of their representatives in the Board, such representatives may be any persons belonging to public  entities who should have the relevant competences and powers to facilitate coordination at national level and  contribute to the achievement of the Board’s tasks. The Board should establish two standing sub-groups to provide  a platform for cooperation and exchange among market surveillance authorities and notifying authorities on issues  related, respectively, to market surveillance and notified bodies. The standing subgroup for market surveillance  should act as the administrative cooperation group (ADCO) for this Regulation within the meaning of Article 30 of  Regulation (EU) 2019/1020. In accordance with Article 33 of that Regulation, the Commission should support the  activities of the standing subgroup for market surveillance by undertaking market evaluations or studies, in  particular with a view to identifying aspects of this Regulation requiring specific and urgent coordination among  market surveillance authorities. The Board may establish other standing or temporary sub-groups as appropriate for  the purpose of examining specific issues. The Board should also cooperate, as appropriate, with relevant Union  bodies, experts groups and networks active in the context of relevant Union law, including in particular those active  under relevant Union law on data, digital products and services.
With a view to ensuring the involvement of stakeholders in the implementation and application of this Regulation,  an advisory forum should be established to advise and provide technical expertise to the Board and the Commission.  To ensure a varied and balanced stakeholder representation between commercial and non-commercial interest and,  within the category of commercial interests, with regards to SMEs and other undertakings, the advisory forum  should comprise inter alia industry, start-ups, SMEs, academia, civil society, including the social partners, as well as  the Fundamental Rights Agency, ENISA, the European Committee for Standardization (CEN), the European  Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) and the European Telecommunications Standards  Institute (ETSI).