The Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2022, here, applies to systems that help make, or themselves make (or recommend) “critical decisions”. Determining if something is a “critical decision” determines if a system is subject to the Act or not. Hence the interest in the discussion, below, of the definition of “critical decision”. The Act defines a…
The Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2022, here, is a very interesting text if you need to design or govern a process for the design of software that involves some form of AI. The Act has no concept of AI, but of Automated Decision System, defined as follows. Section 2 (2): “The term “automated decision system”…
Does the EU AI Act apply to most, if not all software? It is probably not what was intended, but it may well be the case. The EU AI Act, here, applies to “artificial intelligence systems” (AI system), and defines AI systems as follows: ‘artificial intelligence system’ (AI system) means software that is developed with…
In April 2023, the Cyberspace Administration of China released a draft Regulation for Generative Artificial Intelligence Services. The note below continues the previous one related to the same regulation, here. One of the requirements on Generative AI is that the authenticity, accuracy, objectivity, and diversity of the data can be guaranteed. My intent below is…
In a previous note, here, I wrote that one of the requirements for Generative AI products/services in China is that if it uses data that contains personal information, the consent of the holder of the personal information needs to be obtained. It seems self-evident that this needs to be a requirement. It is also not…
IP compliance requirements on generative AI reduce the readily and cheaply available amount of training data, with a few consequences on how product development and product operations are done.
If an AI is not predictable by design, then the purpose of governing it is to ensure that it gives the right answers (actions) most of the time, and that when it fails, the consequences are negligible, or that it can only fail on inconsequential questions, goals, or tasks.
Can “an artificial intelligence machine be an ‘inventor’ under the Patent Act”? According to the Memorandum Opinion filed on September 2, 2021, in the case 1:20-cv-00903, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) requires that the inventor is one or more people [1]. An “AI machine” cannot be named an inventor on a patent that…
