You now have the option to listen to Fox News articles! The rise of AI systems has brought about a need for regulation in their development and the underlying data they rely on. This need for regulation is not only present in policy and public agendas but also in the technology industry, where leaders are set to make their fortunes through AI advancements. However, just a few months ago, a significant number of tech entrepreneurs, researchers, and business people signed an open letter calling for a six-month pause in the development of powerful AI systems. This letter was remarkable, as it was rare to see such a high-level group advocating for research to cease.
When the convergence of information and communications technologies and biotech first emerged, similar concerns were raised. Yuval Harari, in his book “Homo Deus,” examined the future of humankind and its ability to create artificial life and attain god-like powers using technology. These ethical concerns, raised by philosophers, scientists, and policymakers, were taken seriously but did not result in a research cease-fire. The emergence of cable and satellite TV, computers, the internet, and subsequent advancements were met with concerns that they would bring about the end of the world as we knew it. However, while significant changes did occur, they were mostly for the better.
So, why is this latest call for a research pause different? The answer lies in the fact that data and AI tools have become fundamental building blocks of modern societies, similar to energy. Without data and AI, our societies wouldn’t function as they do now. While they may not be included in Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, data and AI enable us to meet those needs in the 21st century. We could survive without them if we were willing to revert back to the ways of the 1950s. However, data and AI are seen as strategic assets for countries and human activities, just like energy production. This explains the nervousness surrounding the AI debate, particularly in the current geopolitical and geoeconomic context. Therefore, global policymaking needs to be approached differently.
Europe’s data policies can only be understood in light of its goal of “technological sovereignty,” which aims to reduce dependency on imported strategic assets. This includes the production and control of vaccines and other assets essential for modern society. Europe has rapidly implemented regulations to gain control over data and ensure the tech industry shifts towards Europe. The US and China have similar policies, making the race for technological supremacy crucial in a changing geopolitical context.
The same observation can be applied to science, which is now data-driven and relies on algorithmic tools. AI can offer immense benefits to science in various ways. The scientific community is concerned about regulating AI as it plays a crucial role in scientific advancements. In a world where technological sovereignty is vital, it’s unlikely that leading countries or continents will allow another power to control sense-making AI tools. It’s also improbable that leading scientific players will mutually share data without reciprocity, as that would result in loss of sovereignty. This dilemma arises because the principles of open science, openness, collaboration, and fairness, clash with the tech and economic ambitions of countries striving to lead in data and AI. Therefore, a solution considering the geopolitical dynamics of the 21st-century science ecosystem is necessary.
A proposed solution is global regulation under a global agency. This would involve ensuring data and algorithms, particularly in science, are easily findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR). Additionally, all AI systems should disclose their AI nature when consulted by humans. Use-case-based regulation should be implemented rather than intention-based, as what may be unacceptable in one country may be acceptable in another. Lastly, self-regulation is inadequate due to conflicting interests and global ambitions in the field of data and AI. A level global playing field, along with an early warning and control mechanism, is necessary for AI and data use policy. To achieve this, an International Data and AI Agency (IDAIA) could be created under the United Nations’ umbrella.
This proposal is not without precedent. After World War II, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was established to regulate nuclear technology and its potential risks. The reasons behind its creation are similar to the reasons for considering global regulation for AI now. It was founded in response to fears and expectations generated by nuclear technology, which was seen as both a controversial application and a practical tool. Just as there are concerns today about AI getting out of hand, the IAEA was created to address the same concerns associated with nuclear technology.
In conclusion, the emergence of AI systems and the reliance on data call for regulation. The current call for a research pause is unique but unlikely to succeed, as past requests to halt research have not been successful. Data and AI have become strategic assets for societies, making regulation necessary. Europe, the US, and China have implemented policies to gain control and technological supremacy. Science, being data-driven, is equally concerned about regulation. The solution lies in global regulation under an international agency, ensuring FAIR data and transparent AI systems, implementing use-case-based regulation, and creating a level global playing field. This approach is crucial in a changing geopolitical context similar to when the International Atomic Energy Agency was formed.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
