EU Lawmakers Make Some New Rules in The Age of Booming Artificial Intelligence

EU lawmakers made some new rules in the age of booming through rapid technology AI and chatGPT app

Rapid technological advancements, like the ChatGPT and Generative artificial intelligence (AI) app, are making it more difficult for European Union legislators to agree on ground-breaking AI laws, according to sources with direct knowledge of the situation.

To safeguard individuals from the risks of the developing technology, which has seen a boom in investment and consumer appeal in recent months, the EU Lawmakers put up the draught regulations almost two years ago. In a conference last month in Strasbourg, France, several parliamentarians anticipated reaching an agreement on the 108-page legislation and moving on to a trilogy in the coming months.

But according to three sources familiar with the discussions, a five-hour meeting on February 13 ended in no resolution and lawmakers are at odds over several aspects of the Act. Although the industry anticipates a deal by the end of the year, there are worries about the complexity and lack of development. The more than 3,000 modifications that have been filed and span everything from the establishment of a new AI office to the parameters of the Act's regulations are being reviewed by lawmakers. From startups to Big Tech businesses are worried about how rules would affect their operations and whether they would be at a competitive disadvantage compared to rivals from other continents as a result of the EU debates.

Legislators created the term "General Purpose AI Systems" (GPAIS) to refer to tools that may be modified to carry out a variety of tasks to solve the problem of programs like ChatGPT, which have a seemingly unlimited number of uses. It's not yet known whether all GPAIS will be considered high-risk.

Tech industry representatives have resisted such actions, arguing that their internal policies are sufficient to guarantee the technology is implemented securely. Some have even suggested the Act should include an opt-in language, allowing corporations to choose whether the restrictions apply or not.