A few thoughts on our AI Act Rule 57+ opinion adopted (17+/1-) by the JURI committee in the European Parliament.
Focusing on 10 key areas, we agreed on a large all-parties compromise package. The text is not only a strong signal to the lead committees but presents also new ideas & concepts for the Parliament's debate on AI.
️Example 1 - scope / Art 2: The JURI committee introduces three new exemptions. On research, testing, development to promote innovation in AI. On B2B to avoid regulating non-risky industrial applications. On opensource until its commercialization to support small market players.
Example 2 - supply chain: The JURI committee also adjusted responsibilities of providers (Art 16) as well as users (Art 29). In addition, we specified under what circumstances those responsibilities might shift to another actor (Art 23a) and we tried to integrate GPAI into the AI Act.
Example 3 - governance: The JURI committee transformed the AI Board into a powerful EU body with its own legal personality and strong involvement of stakeholders. It will help to better coordinate among MS and keep AI Act up to date. And we make sure that typical EU enforcement problems won't happen again.
And finally: what are the chances that lead committees take over some of our ideas? The text on Art 13, 14, 52, 69 is final as those are exclusive JURI competences. For the rest, let's see. But the fact that three of the AI JURI MEPs are also Shadows in the IMCO/LIBE will definitely help.
Comentários