Defining the scope of AI regulations
Fuente:
arXiv
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2019
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866917570212265984 |
|---|---|
| author | Schuett, Jonas |
| author_facet | Schuett, Jonas |
| contents | The paper argues that the material scope of AI regulations should not rely on the term "artificial intelligence (AI)". The argument is developed by proposing a number of requirements for legal definitions, surveying existing AI definitions, and then discussing the extent to which they meet the proposed requirements. It is shown that existing definitions of AI do not meet the most important requirements for legal definitions. Next, the paper argues that a risk-based approach would be preferable. Rather than using the term AI, policy makers should focus on the specific risks they want to reduce. It is shown that the requirements for legal definitions can be better met by defining the main sources of relevant risks: certain technical approaches (e.g. reinforcement learning), applications (e.g. facial recognition), and capabilities (e.g. the ability to physically interact with the environment). Finally, the paper discusses the extent to which this approach can also be applied to more advanced AI systems. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_1909_01095 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2019 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Defining the scope of AI regulations Schuett, Jonas Computers and Society The paper argues that the material scope of AI regulations should not rely on the term "artificial intelligence (AI)". The argument is developed by proposing a number of requirements for legal definitions, surveying existing AI definitions, and then discussing the extent to which they meet the proposed requirements. It is shown that existing definitions of AI do not meet the most important requirements for legal definitions. Next, the paper argues that a risk-based approach would be preferable. Rather than using the term AI, policy makers should focus on the specific risks they want to reduce. It is shown that the requirements for legal definitions can be better met by defining the main sources of relevant risks: certain technical approaches (e.g. reinforcement learning), applications (e.g. facial recognition), and capabilities (e.g. the ability to physically interact with the environment). Finally, the paper discusses the extent to which this approach can also be applied to more advanced AI systems. |
| title | Defining the scope of AI regulations |
| topic | Computers and Society |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.01095 |