19 August 2022
Compute and Antitrust
Compute or computing power refers to a software and hardware stack, such as in a data centre or computer, engineered for AI-specific applications. We argue that the antitrust and regulatory literature to date has failed to pay sufficient attention to compute, despite compute being a key input to AI progress and services, the potentially substantial market power of companies in the supply chain, and the advantages of compute as a ‘unit’ of regulation in terms of detection and remedies. Continue reading >>
0 
18 August 2022
Effective Enforceability of EU Competition Law Under Different AI Development Scenarios
This post examines whether competition law can remain effective in prospective AI development scenarios by looking at six variables for AI development: capability of AI systems, speed of development, key inputs, technical architectures, number of actors, and the nature and relationship of these actors. For each of these, we analyse how different scenarios could impact effective enforceability. In some of these scenarios, EU competition law would remain a strong lever of control; in others it could be significantly weakened. We argue that despite challenges to regulators' ability to detect and remedy breaches, in many future scenarios the effective enforceability of EU competition law remains strong. Continue reading >>
0
12 August 2022
Extra-Constitutional Commitment Mechanisms
The solution to many public dilemmas requires long-term effort by successive generations. Such situation arises whenever the solution to a public dilemma cannot be implemented instantaneously but is dependent on the continuous effort of future governments (and their citizens). In this post I discuss the problem of securing intergenerational cooperation, focusing on the challenge of designing long-term commitment mechanisms. I will also reflect briefly on the tension between commitment mechanisms and the democratic ideal of citizen sovereignty (allowing each generation to make its own choices). Continue reading >>
0
11 August 2022
Narrow Rules are not Enough
With continuing proliferation of increasingly capable AI systems, we will need regulation to address the associated risks. Since our ability to foresee such future risks is very limited, our best bet is to base such regulation on relatively general principles, rather than narrow rules. We think that negative human rights with their existing broad international support could form a suitable foundation both for flexible regulation and for the associated technical solutions. Continue reading >>
0
09 August 2022
Paths Untaken
If the development of certain technologies, such as advanced, unaligned AI, would be as dangerous as some have suggested, a long-termist legal perspective might advocate a strategy of technological delay—or even restraint—to avoid a default outcome of catastrophe. To many, restraint–a decision to withhold indefinitely from the development, or at least deployment, of the technology–might look implausible. However, history offers a surprising array of cases where strategically promising technologies were delayed, abandoned, or left unbuilt, even though many at the time perceived their development as inevitable. Continue reading >>
0
04 April 2022
The Council of Europe as an AI Standard Setter
On 4 April 2022, Member States of the Council of Europe commences negotiations on the world’s first international binding legal instrument in the field of artificial intelligence. The CoE has a large reservoir of both experience and expertise in the field of standard setting, as far as the three key priorities are concerned: promoting human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Given the undisputed need for regulating AI activities, the CoE appears a prime candidate for this undertaking. Continue reading >>
0
03 April 2022
Rule of Law, AI, and “the Individual”
The institutional safeguards formulated under the Rule of Law tend to focus on “an individual” or “the individual” who can be the bearer of the rights and protections it awards. This pre-digital formulation worked well in an era where law was the pre-eminent form of social regulation. However, increasingly, individual interests are impacted not only on the basis of the actions and choices of the concerned individual, but also on the basis of data collected about her social context and that of other similarly situated individuals. In order to reconcile these tensions, in this blog, I argue for supplementing the existing individual protections recognized under the Rule of Law framework with recognition of collective interests in order to strengthen the Rule of Law in the age of AI. Continue reading >>
0
01 April 2022
Thoughts on the Black Box: Getting to Cooperative Intelligence in Public Administration
The requirement of explanation for administrative decisions can be found, in one guise or another, in most legal systems. This requirement is a positive obligation on decision-makers in public administrative bodies (among others) to provide the legal basis for their decision. With the continuing growth of artificial intelligence/machine learning technologies being used to streamline administrative decision-making, providing for a right to explanation from black box algorithmic decision-making systems is not a straightforward endeavor. Continue reading >>
0
01 April 2022
High Tech, Low Fidelity? Statistical Legal Tech and the Rule of Law
The advent of statistical ‘legal tech’ raises questions about the future of law and legal practice. While it has always been the case that technologies have mediated the concept, practice, and texture of law, a qualitative and quantitative shift is taking place. Statistical legal tech is being integrated into mainstream legal practice, particularly that of litigators. These applications mediate how practicing lawyers interact with the legal system. By shaping how law is ‘done’, the applications ultimately come to shape what law is. Continue reading >>
0
31 März 2022
Global Inequities in Algorithms
Algorithms can seem like esoteric subjects, often relegated to the realm of engineers and technology companies, given the technical nature of algorithmic design. Algorithms, when applied, take on a social character that invites us into peer beneath the hood to understand both their function and application. Given the growing ubiquitousness of algorithms in our daily lives, policymakers are looking to capture algorithms within regulatory mechanisms. This article seeks to understand the inequalities that undergird algorithmic applications, in order to understand how to regulate these systems. Continue reading >>
0