Does the AI Act Adequately Allocate Responsibilities along the Value Chain for High-Risk Systems?
The European Union’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act regulates high-risk systems by allocating responsibilities to designated actors throughout the systems’ value chain. This study discusses the allocation of these responsibilities and argues that while the Act’s linear approach promotes compliance and accountability at each stage of the systems’ design, development, and deployment, it also has notable limitations that could pose risks to individuals.
Introduction
In 2024, the European Union adopted the AI Act to promote the uptake of human-centric and trustworthy AI while safeguarding people’s health, safety, and fundamental rights. The Act adopts a risk-based approach that categorizes AI systems as unacceptable risk, high-risk, limited-risk, and low-risk, in addition to specific provisions for general-purpose AI models.
This study focuses on high-risk AI systems and examines whether the AI Act adequately allocates responsibilities throughout the systems’ life cycle. We begin by unpacking the definition of high-risk AI systems and identifying the key actors at each stage of the value chain.
Decoding High-Risk AI Systems and Their Key Actors
According to Article 6 of the AI Act, an AI system is classified as high-risk in two instances:
- The AI system is intended to be used as a safety component of a product, or a product covered by EU laws in Annex I of the Act and is required to undergo a third-party conformity assessment (e.g., in vitro medical devices, lifts, toys, etc.);
- The system is referred to in Annex III (mainly dealing with fundamental rights concerns).
However, paragraph 3 of Article 6 provides an exemption to this categorization. It clarifies that an AI system referred to in Annex III is not considered high-risk when it is intended to:
- (a) perform a narrow procedural task;
- (b) improve the result of a previously completed human activity;
- (c) detect decision-making patterns or deviations, and is not meant to influence the previously completed human assessment without proper human review;
- (d) perform a preparatory task of the evaluation relevant to the use cases under Annex III.
An AI system is exempted where it does not pose a significant risk of harm to the health, safety, or fundamental rights of natural persons. In that case, the systems’ providers must document their assessment before the system is placed on the market or put into service, and register themselves and the system in a new EU database.
Evaluating the Responsibility Allocation
The AI Act outlines the roles and obligations of the actors in a linear fashion within a flexible regulatory environment to promote transparency, compliance, and accountability. However, this study argues that further refinement is necessary to better address the unique complexity, opacity, and autonomy of AI systems, which introduce particular liability issues that the Act does not fully address.
For instance, the linear approach may not adequately capture the intricate interactions between various stakeholders involved in the AI lifecycle, such as developers, users, and regulatory bodies. This could lead to gaps in accountability, especially in scenarios where the AI system operates autonomously or makes decisions that significantly impact individuals.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the AI Act represents a significant step towards regulating high-risk AI systems and promoting accountability, it is essential to tighten the flexibility within the Act to ensure better protection of individuals’ safety, health, and fundamental rights. As AI technology continues to advance, ongoing evaluation and adaptation of regulatory frameworks will be critical in addressing the challenges and risks associated with high-risk AI systems.
