Shortly after the forum, though, people who notice these things noticed that American enthusiasm for regulating artificial intelligence seemed to slow considerably. It wasn’t due to a lack of interest or any behind-the-scenes drama at the forum. It wasn’t due to a lack of necessity. It was due, at least in part, to Dragos Tudorache.
Tudorache is a member of the European Parliament from Romania and the chair of the Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence in a Digital Age. It’s hard to compare him to a current American politician because his chief personality trait is a passion for seriousness; if your kink is white papers and lengthy plenary sessions, close this tab and go directly to his Instagram. For the past five years, Tudorache has spent most of his time contemplating how to regulate artificial intelligence in a way that prioritizes safety while shedding Europe’s well-earned reputation for fining Big Tech first and asking questions later.
In September, Tudorache visited Capitol Hill to brief the group of four’s collective staff members on Europe’s plans. A person in attendance described the session as “impressive” and “deflating.” Impressive, because the European Union’s draft regulations were thoughtful, balanced and flexible enough to change with technology that’s going to keep changing. That was also the deflating part. While the United States was congratulating itself for starting the regulatory process, Europe was basically finished. And its package of rules was so good that Congress would soon be forced to choose between spending years trying to top it or copying the homework of an obviously superior student.
The decision point has arrived. The European Parliament voted overwhelmingly to pass the AI Act last week, creating the first comprehensive set of rules for artificial intelligence. There are nits to pick, but the people I spoke with at big and small technology companies, as well as at citizens rights groups, were unanimous: Copy the homework. “I told everyone I met with in Washington, ‘Listen, of course, you will do your thinking, and you will make your decision as to the approach you want to take,’ ” Tudorache said. “ ‘We turned over exactly the stones that you’re turning over right now, and we think you will end up exactly where we are — not because we are smarter than everyone else but simply because we started earlier than everyone else.’ ”
Earlier, not smarter is a nice way of letting Congress save face. It’s strategic, too. A consistent set of AI rules across the free world would make compliance easier and cheaper for companies and comfort freaked-out citizens. The AI Act addresses the former by sorting AI on a continuum of potential risk, with compliance structured to match each category. If your AI product helps people organize their closets or make content recommendations, it’s a feathery-light touch. If your AI system sorts résumés or determines loan eligibility, or if you’re a “foundation” model such as ChatGPT or Google’s Gemini, your model and its impacts will get regular assessments. It deals with people’s fears by banning indiscriminate surveillance, social scoring systems and anything else Chinese leader Xi Jinping might dream up. “Regulation isn’t just rules,” Tudorache said. “It’s an opportunity to express our values.”
The European Parliament has 705 members from 27 countries, and for decades its most important function was as a continental rubber room. Nations would often send their dimmest political lights and most careless nepo babies to Brussels, where they could bask in self-importance far from the real work of domestic politics. The Fredo Corleone strategy, basically. Those days are long gone. While the rest of the world’s governments get ever more ridiculous, the European Parliament is frequently a beacon of competence, and it’s mature enough to learn from its mistakes.
The General Data Protection Regulation, passed in 2016, is a digital privacy law full of good intentions: It gives citizens the right to know how their data is used as well as the right to be forgotten, forcing companies to delete information under certain circumstances. It’s also full of incomprehensible rules and vague enforcement responsibilities. It has made lawyers rich and driven companies that do business in Europe bonkers. Tudorache had the GDPR in mind when he wrote rules simple enough for a layperson to understand and insisted on a single enforcement authority. “I spent thousands of hours talking to stakeholders in all directions, and I’ve learned from everyone, from Google down to small start-ups,” Tudorache said. “Many of their process points found their way into law. Not because they lobbied, but because they were good arguments.”
When Tudorache was finished describing his very open not-lobbying with the AI industry, I was silent for a moment. “You are surprised,” he said with a little smile in his voice, as though he’d been hoping for just this reaction. And it’s true. I did not expect a member of the European Parliament from Romania to sound quite so much like a Reagan-era Republican. If I didn’t know better, I’d think he was putting on some Sade and expecting Microsoft for dinner.
If nothing else jolts Congress from its slumber, maybe this will. There’s no imminent risk of Europe becoming the top market for AI tech; the U.S. lead on talent, infrastructure and capital is too significant. But if regulation is the love language of good governance, Europe is poised to remain a gallant protector of individual rights while moving into a far more seductive era with the world’s AI tech companies. Keep an eye on Dragos Tudorache’s Instagram.
Credit: Source link
