Acerca de
Specific Legislative Amendments that have to be introduced to the Constitutional Law of Every Country
Polina Prianykova
International Human Rights Defender on AI,
Author of the First AI Constitution in World History,
Student of the Law Faculty & the Faculty of Economics
Specific Legislative Amendments that have to be introduced
to the Constitutional Law of Every Country
In this modern-day world, high-tech novelties seem to originate continuously, but the quintessence thereof may vary greatly, taking into consideration the taxonomy that reflects the respective responsibility prescribed and risk for the use of such innovations. The critical issue lies in the fact that particular unscrupulous individuals or corporations may have a strong interest in availing themselves of these technologies driven by various motives, where there is a reason that prevails and stands out as one of the most perilous ones – exempt from the legal punishment for illegal actions. The problems we refer to in this scientific article may find their solutions in relevant alterations started worldwide and extending their subject matter to the Constitutional law in particular.
Keywords: regulation of AI, Constitutional amendments, monopoly on AI, governmental AI, legislation on AI, global changes, regulatory oversight for innovations.
Formulation of the relevance of the scientific article. Constitutional law has always been the core of the global law system as well as every country in particular. Taking into consideration the fact that it is also specifically solid and comprises entrenched fundamental law principles, it can be presumed that this branch undergoes tectonic changes as a last resort; every single provision is given careful consideration before its approval and enactment. However, when innovations start triggering human rights, becoming influential tools under the control of minority, the cradle of law paradigms starts being swayed by the vortex of novelties implemented.
Hence, miscellaneous modern processes have to be considered and the respective alterations provided per se, and the aforementioned notion evinces the relevance of this scientific work; the primary purpose thereof lies in shedding the light on the kernel of the Scientific doctrine on AI implementation into the worldwide legislation by Polina Prianykova.
Recent research and publication analysis. Specific alterations to the legislation elaborated by the governmental institutions of the People’s Republic of China are considered parallel with particular established practices of the United States of America and the European Union [1, 4, 6]. Due attention is paid to the opinions and proposals of respected scholars, inter alia Russell Wald, director of policy for Stanford University’s Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI), and researchers of the Oxford University [1, 7].
Presentation of the main body of the article. In this day and age, Artificial Intelligence systems have become popularized and widely used among commercial enterprises as well as governmental institutions, notwithstanding the fact that they have not been given the respective focus in terms of establishing ad-hoc regulation thereof. Unfortunately, the prevalent tendency of inertia among the legislators is quite common when it comes to deciding whether there is a need for the law system to comprise the novel relations or not, often claiming them to be temporary. It should be noted that the law exactly has to foreordain the course of such technological development rather than let things slide.
As the Constitutional law subordinates all other respective realms, crucial changes in terms of the implementation and use of AI have to be stipulated for the supreme law, first and foremost. The issue we are enlightening in this scientific article pertains to the fact that high-powered businesses invest substantial sums in the development and full-fledged deployment of AI systems, bearing in mind the statistics that new mechanisms raise profit for enterprises. For instance, according to ‘McKinsey & Company’, which is supposed to be one of the most trusted advisors and counselors for successful businesses and institutions, 10% of their survey respondents who had adopted AI reported a greater than 10% increase in revenues [1].
Furthermore, innovative algorithms are often claimed to be evolving, presuming constant changes and ameliorations in their functioning. Hence, we may surmise that, in the nearest future, commercial AI might become the most advanced of a kind. Unequivocally, it seems that humanity will definitely benefit from that tendency. However, the possibility of the corresponding legal regulation thereof sparks controversy.
In this scientific work, we will cover the aspects of some AI regulations drafted and implemented, putting a particular emphasis on supporting the notion of introducing significant alterations to law systems worldwide.
According to Russell Wald, director of policy for Stanford University's Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HAI), the People’s Republic of China has become the first country to enact AI algorithm regulations and certain provisions that may considerably impact other normative acts [2]. In one of our scientific articles, specifically in “Particularities of the regulation of AI algorithms, inter alia in online platforms and services, based on the example of ‘TikTok’”, we have enlightened the fact that the Chinese government has already made specific amendments to the ‘Minor protection law’, especially in part related to online services and platforms’ compliance with fundamental law principles [3]. On March 14, 2022, the Cyberspace Administration of China released a novel draft for comment with an aim to strengthen the protection of minors’ information, inter alia by concretizing the process of confirmation of the true identity information of minors under the age of 14 as they may need to obtain the consent of their guardian in order to prevent unscrupulous cheating on behalf of the minors; formulation of emergency plans for cybersecurity incidents, the legal obligations that manufacturers and sellers of smart terminal products shall undertake are also given careful consideration [4].
It is critical to note that the use of the aforementioned ‘terminal products’ prescribes that they include the function of LTE and basically require connectivity to the network [5]. The government has also considered the cases of the incredibility of some children’s smartwatches, substantiating this by the fact that the products may collect personal data easily, including facial recognition and the location of the minors [4]. Hence, the enforcement of the regulatory oversight might be conceivable.
The application of algorithms, concerning the display of advertisements, has started being rigorously revised. It is also vital to draw attention to the fact that the government has begun to address the so-called ‘algorithmic discrimination’ issue. The developers are now legally prescribed to promote fairness and transparency when it comes to providing recommendations on their online platforms and services [4].
The cybersecurity review can also be deemed to entail substantial amendments. The last are even claimed to be one of the most important in China’s data sector in the first quarter. The measures stipulate that if the data processing activities of the network platform operators affect the national security, or if the latter operators go public abroad, having the personal data of more than 1 million users, the service may be obliged to pass a specific network security inspection. Enterprises that fail to comply with the regulations will face legal implications, right up to bearing criminal responsibility [4].
Ad-hoc guidelines on the creation of a protected environment for the vehicles that have access to the Internet are provided, and the PRC’s government doesn’t seem to stop their efforts towards the regulation of a wide cluster of novelties with AI implemented. The development and further enactment of new standards by 2023 and 2025 are planned in particular [4].
In this way, while the debates about the AI bill of rights are reported to be ongoing in the US [2], China has already introduced unprecedented and considerable alterations significant to take into account.
Overviewing the state of affairs concerning the regulation of AI in general, it still does not make an impression that technological expansion is centrally supervised.
Explicit modeling of the case might serve as a bright hypothetical example. An evident fact lies in cutting-edge novelties implemented and provided by influential enterprises and, undoubtedly, when certain attempts to create any legal barrier to establish the red lines for the AI are made, these companies may deploy such practices reluctantly, trying to resist or even confront such trends. Furthermore, if only a few countries start enacting the relevant AI regulations, they bear a highly probable risk of becoming ‘isolated’ points on the world map, meaning that large corporations might prefer losing millions of their users rather than bearing the liability for violations of law (the taxonomy thereof should also be deemed to be of paramount importance to stipulate).
That is why it is vital to start and continue elaborating and adopting the ad-hoc legislation on AI globally, starting from the respective Resolution of the United Nations that would oblige the legislators to face the challenges and commence work in the direction of harmonizing the law system with innovations. Hence, it is inevitable for the Constitutional law to undergo pivotal in terms of the advancement changes.
Moreover, the AI systems have to comply with each country’s provisions on their implementation and use. The precise AI regulation may not seem feasible from first sight as it demands a granular approach, responsible and centralized. However, certain strides towards encompassing the vast cluster of AI innovations have been made. For instance, researchers of the University of Oxford have created a tool called ‘capAI’, “a procedure for conducting conformity assessment of AI systems in line with the EU ‘Artificial Intelligence Act’” [6]. Basically, ‘capAI’ may serve as a resource that comprises current practices of the technology’s use and the rules that have to be taken into account with a view to adhering to the regulations established by the EU. It is also claimed to be ‘an additional governance mechanism in the management toolbox’, possible for the companies to employ in order to ensure that the mechanisms they use comply with the rules set [7].
Nevertheless, such practices have a rather complementary or even declarative character as well as some normative acts are still considered to be drafted whereas the technology itself is gaining momentum. The opinions concerning the ways of supervision of AI are divided, but we have a particularly novel approach to the current issue.
Nowadays, powerful corporations are virtually enshrining an unspoken monopoly on the use and implementation of AI – in my Scientific Doctrine, I propose to transfer this exclusive right to the government of every country, and thus, such provisions shall be prescribed in Constitutional law.
Synthesizing the information set above, it is pivotal to crystallize the notion that governmental AI would comprise the algorithms where essential documents with law principles that form the basis of the rule of law, e.g. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are complied with. Governmental monopoly on AI is akin to the exclusive right to the use of force and weaponry. What is more, the government may get the sole right to issue licenses for the implementation and use of AI on behalf of enterprises, especially differentiating what risks each AI may entail; but the regulations would not slow down the evolution of commercial AI – its governmental form would have access to the commercial data and hence, differently aimed AI algorithms would function individually and jointly, proving that these elements are not mutually exclusive, but integral. The significant note is that the perplexity caused by the inadequate regulation of AI may be globally eliminated by providing specific and substantial amendments to the legislation, guaranteeing the governmental monopoly on AI in the Constitution of each and every country.
References:
1. ‘McKinsey: winning companies are increasing their investment in AI during COVID-19. What do they know that you don’t?’ , ‘Glenn Gow’ – URL: https://www.glenngow.com/mckinsey-winning-companies-are-increasing-their-investment-in-ai-during-covid-19-what-do-they-know-that-you-dont/ – (Accessed on 27 April 2022).
2. ‘China's AI regulations face technical challenge’, Makenzie Holland, news writer, ‘TechTarget’– URL: https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/news/252514781/Chinas-AI-regulations-face-technical-challenge – (Accessed on 27 April 2022).
3. “Particularities of the regulation of AI algorithms, inter alia in online platforms and services, based on the example of ‘TikTok’”, IHRDonAI Polina Prianykova – URL: https://isg-konf.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Multidisciplinary-academic-notes.-Science-research-and-practice.pdf – (Accessed on 27 April 2022).
4. ‘数据行业2022年第一季度中国数据领域立法动态：科技、媒体和通信新’(‘Data Industry Legislative developments in China’s data sector in the first quarter of 2022: new developments in technology, media and communications’), ‘Sina Corp’ – URL: http://stock.finance.sina.com.cn/stock/go.php/vReport_Show/kind/search/rptid/703965484632/index.phtml– (Accessed on 27 April 2022).
5. Terminal Product definition, ‘Law Insider’ – URL:https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/terminal-product – (Accessed on 27 April 2022).
6. ‘Assessment’, ‘The AI Act’ – URL: https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/assessment/ – (Accessed on 27 April 2022).
7. ‘capAI - A Procedure for Conducting Conformity Assessment of AI Systems in Line with the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (March 23, 2022)’, Floridi, Luciano and Holweg, Matthias and Taddeo, Mariarosaria and Amaya Silva, Javier and Mökander, Jakob and Wen, Yuni – URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4064091 – (Accessed on 27 April 2022).
Officially Published in May 03-06, 2022, Tokyo, Japan (Table of Contents, № 63)
© Copyright by Polina Prianykova_all rights reserved
