The Artificial Intelligence Act sets a unified legal framework for AI systems in the EU, focusing on health, safety, and fundamental rights protection while encouraging innovation. In forensic applications, the Act highlights high-risk uses related to law enforcement and justice, placing strict compliance obligations on AI system operators.
This article proposes a comprehensive framework for verifying compliance with the EU AI Act for high-risk AI systems, addressing regulatory ambiguity and facilitating consistent readiness across Member States by organizing verification along key assessment dimensions.
The potential introduction of advertisements in general-purpose Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT raises significant ethical and legal concerns, especially the risk of manipulating vulnerable users. The EU AI Act is pivotal in addressing these issues by targeting manipulative AI techniques that exploit cognitive biases and psychological vulnerabilities.
UK businesses exhibit high confidence in their readiness for the EU AI Act, yet face significant fines and contract disruptions more frequently than counterparts in Germany and France. This highlights a gap between perceived and actual compliance outcomes.
This article discusses the challenges of governing adaptive AI systems under the EU AI Act, emphasizing that drift—behavioral changes in AI—is an inherent characteristic rather than a failure. It highlights the importance of ongoing supervision and accountability to ensure these systems operate within their intended purposes and comply with regulatory requirements.
The European Commission has proposed amendments to the EU AI Act to ensure smoother implementation, including delaying compliance deadlines for high-risk AI obligations and granting a six-month grace period for certain transparency requirements. The proposals also aim to simplify regulations for SMEs and enhance the authority of the European AI Office.
A recent survey by Theta Lake reveals that while 99% of financial firms are expanding AI usage in communications, 88% struggle to govern AI-generated data. As AI becomes an active participant in business conversations, companies must evolve their compliance strategies to manage new risks and regulatory complexities.
The AI Act establishes a legal framework to regulate AI systems within the European Union, including guidelines, standards, and authorities for monitoring compliance. This article explores key elements already in effect, ongoing consultations, and future challenges faced by stakeholders.
On January 1, California’s Transparency in Frontier AI Act (SB 53) goes into effect, establishing the nation’s first safety and transparency requirements for frontier AI developers to manage catastrophic risks. The publicly available Frontier Compliance Framework (FCF) details how developers assess and mitigate threats including cyber offense and AI sabotage.
In a recent podcast by Oyster Consulting, Partner Carolyn Welshhans discussed regulatory risks and challenges of AI use in wealth management firms, emphasizing concerns such as AI transparency and the growing issue of “AI washing,” where firms misrepresent their AI capabilities to attract clients.