Malta: Navigating The AI Frontier: A Comprehensive Guide To Current And Proposed Regulations

EU AI Regulations

AI REGULATION​ IN THE EU

The EU AI Act (COM/2021/206) is hailed as the first comprehensive regulation on AI. It represents a significant milestone in AI governance via legislation. It aims to establish a harmonised framework for AI regulation across EU member states.

The Act's key provisions include a risk-based approach to AI governance. Specifically, with stringent requirements for high-risk AI systems to undergo conformity assessments. These assessments are conducted by notified bodies accredited by EU member states, instilling accountability and oversight in the development and deployment of high-risk AI applications.

Additionally, the Act imposes strict prohibitions on certain AI applications deemed unacceptable. Social scoring systems and real-time biometric identification in public spaces are a good example of this. By delineating clear boundaries on permissible AI applications, the EU aims to safeguard fundamental rights, including privacy, non-discrimination, and autonomy, while fostering public trust in AI technologies.

To facilitate effective implementation and enforcement of the AI Act, the legislation establishes the European Artificial Intelligence Board (EAIB). Comprising representatives from EU member states, the EAIB is tasked with providing guidance, monitoring compliance, and fostering international cooperation on AI governance. Furthermore, the Act empowers national competent authorities to enforce regulatory requirements and impose sanctions for non-compliance, ensuring robust enforcement mechanisms across the EU.

The EU AI Act (COM/2021/206) is hailed as the first comprehensive regulation on AI. It represents a significant milestone in AI governance via legislation. It aims to establish a harmonised framework for AI regulation across EU member states.

The Act's key provisions include a risk-based approach to AI governance. Specifically, with stringent requirements for high-risk AI systems to undergo conformity assessments. These assessments are conducted by notified bodies accredited by EU member states, instilling accountability and oversight in the development and deployment of high-risk AI applications.

Additionally, the Act imposes strict prohibitions on certain AI applications deemed unacceptable. Social scoring systems and real-time biometric identification in public spaces are a good example of this. By delineating clear boundaries on permissible AI applications, the EU aims to safeguard fundamental rights, including privacy, non-discrimination, and autonomy, while fostering public trust in AI technologies.

To facilitate effective implementation and enforcement of the AI Act, the legislation establishes the European Artificial Intelligence Board (EAIB). Comprising representatives from EU member states, the EAIB is tasked with providing guidance, monitoring compliance, and fostering international cooperation on AI governance. Furthermore, the Act empowers national competent authorities to enforce regulatory requirements and impose sanctions for non-compliance, ensuring robust enforcement mechanisms across the EU.

US AI Regulations

In contrast, the AI regulatory landscape in the US is characterised by a patchwork of laws and guidelines. As usual, reflecting a more decentralised and sector-specific approach. Federal agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have issued guidelines and regulations addressing specific aspects of AI, such as consumer protection and autonomous vehicles. However, comprehensive federal legislation on AI remains elusive, with regulatory efforts primarily focused on addressing sector-specific challenges.

The Department of Defence (DoD) is actively engaged in regulating AI technologies. In particular, within the context of national security and defence applications. The DoD has issued guidelines and policies for the ethical development and use of AI in military operations, including principles for AI governance, human-AI collaboration, and risk management. It also collaborates with industry partners and academia to advance AI research while ensuring national security interests are upheld.

Beyond the FTC, NHTSA, and DoD, several other federal agencies are involved in regulating AI technologies within their respective domains. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees the regulation of AI-driven medical devices and diagnostic tools, ensuring safety, efficacy, and accuracy standards are met. Similarly, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) addresses AI-related cybersecurity threats, while the Department of Justice (DOJ) focuses on legal and ethical considerations in AI applications, such as predictive policing and criminal justice reform.

Challenges and Disparities

AI REGULATION​

The result is a heterogeneous system of laws and regulations. Against this backdrop, businesses, developers, and policymakers face the challenge of navigating a complex and evolving regulatory landscape. While the EU AI Act provides a comprehensive framework for AI governance in the EU, the regulatory environment in the UnS remains fragmented, with varying approaches across states and sectors. This disparity poses challenges for multinational companies operating in both jurisdictions, as they must reconcile conflicting regulatory requirements and ensure compliance with evolving standards.

UK AI Regulations​

AI REGULATION in the UK

The AI Sector Deal is the UK government's strategic initiative to grow their AI legislative scope. It represents a concerted effort to position the UK as a global leader in AI innovation, research, and development. It was released in 2018 as part of the Industrial Strategy, aiming to leverage the transformative potential of AI technologies to drive economic growth, improve public services, and address societal challenges.

Key components of the Deal include substantial public and private sector investments, primarily in AI research, initiatives to foster AI talent development, and measures to promote ethical and responsible uses of AI technologies. Furthermore, the deal emphasises collaboration between industry, academia, and government to accelerate AI innovation and adoption across various sectors.

This outlines the UK's commitment to invest in AI research and innovation. In fact, the government pledged to invest £603 million in AI-related initiatives; with an additional £342 million in private sector investment, totalling £945 million. This underscores the government's recognition of AI as a strategic priority for economic growth and improving societal outcomes.

Moreover, the Deal places a strong emphasis on skills development and education. This aims to ramp up the UK workforce, giving them the necessary tools to thrive in an AI-driven economy.

Initiatives such as the AI Skills and Talent Package aim to support a wide-range development of AI skills. In fact various educational levels are included, from primary schools to universities; promoting diversity and inclusivity in the AI workforce.

In addition to fostering innovation and talent development, the AI Sector Deal underscores the importance of ethical and responsible AI development and deployment. It includes provisions for establishing an AI Council to provide guidance on AI policy and ethics, as well as initiatives to develop standards and best practices for AI governance and regulation.

Navigating the AI Frontier: Conclusion

AI REGULATION

While western governments are starting to take AI seriously, diverging legislations in a globalised world pose a daunting challenge. As businesses, developers, and policymakers navigate the complex and evolving regulatory landscape, they must reconcile differing approaches and ensure compliance with evolving standards. Multinational companies operating across jurisdictions face challenges in navigating regulatory disparities. However, initiatives such as the EU AI Act and the UK's AI Sector Deal provide guiding frameworks for responsible AI governance, fostering innovation while safeguarding societal interests.