MEPs on the European Parliament’s Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) examined and debated, on Thursday 30 June, some 3,000 amendments tabled on harmonised rules for artificial intelligence (AI) (see EUROPE 12978/24).
“All these amendments show how important this regulation is”, commented the IMCO Committee rapporteur Brando Benifei (S&D, Italy).
A large part of the discussion was devoted to the protection of fundamental rights in the context of the use of high-risk AI systems. On this point, the S&D group - and this position is shared by several other political groups in the European Parliament - advocates that a fundamental rights impact assessment should be carried out before the use of high-risk systems.
“This is a crucial point that is missing in the Commission’s proposal”, Mr Benifei insisted.
In addition, the issue of definitions was also raised on many occasions. While some call for the most precise definition possible or, like Axel Voss (EPP, Germany), for not including certain static algorithms, others claim that the definition should be as broad as possible in order not to close the door to certain applications that could prove problematic.
“This is a controversial point. We want to continue to cover the widest possible area and regulate practices that can have a negative impact on citizens”, said Petar Vitanov (S&D, Bulgaria).
In addition, several MEPs stressed the importance of looking into banning certain uses of AI, such as biometric recognition - on which there is a broad consensus in favour of banning it - or the social notion, as well as systems that may prove discriminatory.
The issue of regulatory sandboxes also came up several times, with the majority of MEPs who raised this point emphasising the role these devices could play in the development of AI.
“The sandbox system would provide the data needed to train AI systems”, said Mr Voss.
The German MEP also put forward the idea of a European Council for Artificial Intelligence. This, he detailed, could have a role incorporating national authorities, or even “take up all the texts that it would be possible to bring together in the framework of an agency”.
The idea of a European Council for AI was already part of Mr Voss’ report adopted by the members of the special committee on artificial intelligence last 22 March (see EUROPE 12917/23).
Finally, several MEPs from the opinion-giving committees, such as those from the European Parliament’s Committee on Culture, have expressed their desire to see student assessment systems in examinations also included in the list of high risk systems. (Original version in French by Thomas Mangin)