What the EU Gets Right with its New AI Rules

What the EU Gets Right with its New AI Rules

The European Union’s latest effort to rein in artificial intelligencethe AI Act, marks a pivotal step towards regulating a technology that is as pervasive as it is potent. With its public unveiling on January 21, the Act lays a framework that seeks to harness AI’s capabilities while safeguarding the fundamental tenets of trust, ethics, and human rights.

As we unpack the Act’s dimensions, we will weigh its merits against its potential impediments to the trajectory of AI, not just within the confines of Europe but as a precedent for the global stage. The discourse around this groundbreaking legislation is as much about its current form as it is about the dialogue it engenders concerning the future interplay of artificial intelligence with our societal mores and economic frameworks.

Does it strike the right balance?

The AI Act introduces a risk-based regulatory schema, categorizing AI systems into unacceptable, high-risk, limited-risk, and minimal-risk. The Act prohibits ‘unacceptable risk’ AI systems, such as manipulative social scoring and covert emotional manipulation, to protect individual rights. ‘High-risk’ AIs, pivotal in healthcare, education, and law enforcement, face rigorous requirements including human oversight. ‘Limited-risk’ AIs, like chatbots, must disclose their AI nature to users. Lastly, ‘minimal-risk’ AIs, like video games, have minimal regulatory constraints, promoting innovation while safeguarding against abuses.

The AI Act is crafted with the dual goals of fostering technological innovation and upholding fundamental rights. The Act’s targeted regulatory focus seeks to minimize undue burdens on AI practitioners by emphasizing the control of applications with the most potential for harm. However, it is not without its detractors. Critics point to its ostensibly broad and ambiguous language, which may leave too much open to interpretation, potentially leading to legal uncertainties.

The Act’s broad definition of AI as a technology-neutral concept, its reliance on subjective terminology like “significant” risk, and the discretionary power it affords to regulatory bodies are seen as potential stumbling blocks, raising concerns over possible inconsistencies and confusion for stakeholders within the EU’s digital marketplace.

A significant challenge the EU’s AI Act faces is ensuring consistent enforcement across all member states. To address this, the Act constructs an elaborate governance structure that includes the European Artificial Intelligence Board and national authorities, bolstered by bodies responsible for market surveillance. The Act stipulates robust penalties for non-compliance, including fines of up to 7% of global annual turnover. Beyond punitive measures, it emphasizes the role of self-regulation, expecting AI entities to undertake conformity assessments and maintain risk management protocols. The Act also recognizes the importance of global cooperation, considering the divergent AI regulatory landscapes outside the EU.

The efficacy of the Act will ultimately hinge on the collective engagement and adherence of all parties to its stipulated frameworks.

Some pros and cons of the AI Act

The AI Act directly addresses the burgeoning field of advanced technologies, focusing on generative AI, biometric identification, and the nascent realm of quantum computing. These technologies hold transformative potential across diverse sectors including healthcare, education, entertainment, security, and scientific research.

Yet, with great potential comes a spectrum of challenges, particularly concerning ethical issues like bias and discrimination, as well as concerns over privacy, security, and accountability. The Act confronts these challenges head-on by instituting rules and obligations tailored to specific AI categories. For instance, generative AI systems — which can create new, diverse outputs such as text, images, audio, or video from given inputs — must adhere to stringent transparency obligations. This is particularly pertinent as generative AIs like ChatGPT and DALL-E find broader applications in content creation, education, and other domains.

The Act acknowledges the potential for malicious use of generative AI, such as spreading disinformation, engaging in fraudulent activities, or launching cyberattacks. To counteract this, it mandates that any AI-generated or manipulated content must be identifiable as such, either through direct communication to the user or through built-in detectability. The goal is to ensure that users are not deceived by AI-generated content, maintaining a level of authenticity and trust in digital interactions.

Additionally, the Act requires AI systems that manipulate content to be designed in such a way that their outputs can be discerned as AI-generated by humans or other AI systems. This provision aims to preserve the integrity of information and preclude the erosion of factual standards in the digital age.

The AI Act is intentionally crafted to harmonize technological progress with the protection of foundational societal norms and values. The Act’s efficacy is predicated on the meticulous application of these regulations, keeping pace with the rapid development of AI technologies.

Turning to biometric identification systems, these tools are capable of recognizing individuals based on unique physical or behavioral traits such as facial features, fingerprints, voice, or even patterns of movement. While they offer enhancements in security, border management, and personalized access, they simultaneously raise substantial concerns for individual rights, including privacy and the presumption of innocence.

The Act specifically addresses the sensitive nature of biometric identification, incorporating stringent controls over its deployment. It notably restricts the use of real-time biometric identification systems in public areas for law enforcement, barring a few exceptions where the circumstances are critically compelling — such as locating a missing child, thwarting a terrorist threat, or tackling grave criminal activity.

In cases where biometric techniques are employed for law enforcement, the Act mandates prior approval from an independent authority, ensuring that any use is necessary, proportionate, and coupled with human review and protective measures. This regulatory stance underlines a commitment to uphold civil liberties even as we advance into an era of increasingly sophisticated digital surveillance tools.

Harnessed from the enigmatic realm of quantum physics, quantum computing emerges as a technological titan capable of calculations that dwarf the prowess of traditional computers. With the power to sift through vast data and unlock solutions to hitherto intractable problems, its potential spans the spectrum from cryptography to complex simulations, and from optimization to machine learning. Yet, this same capability ushers in novel risks: the crumbling of current cryptographic defenses, the birth of unforeseen security breaches, and the potential to tilt global power equilibria. The European Union’s AI Act, while not directly addressing quantum computing, encompasses AI systems powered by such quantum techniques within its regulatory embrace, mandating adherence to established rules based on the assessed risk and application context. Moreover, the Act presciently signals the need for persistent exploration and innovation in this sphere, advocating for the creation of encryption that can withstand the siege of quantum capabilities.

The Act’s influence on the vanguard of technology is paradoxical. It affords a measure of predictability and a compass for AI practitioners and end-users alike, weaving a safety net for the digital citizenry. Conversely, it may erect hurdles that temper the speed of AI progress and competitive edge, leaving a mist of ambiguity over the governance and stewardship of AI. The true measure of the Act’s imprint will reveal itself in the finesse of its enforcement, its interpretative flexibility, and its dance with the ever-evolving tempo of AI innovation.

Ethical considerations

The ethical tapestry of the AI Act is rich and intricate, advocating for an AI that is at once robust, ethical, and centered around human dignity, reflecting and magnifying the EU’s core values. It draws inspiration from the Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence, which delineate seven foundational requirements for the ethical deployment of AI, from ensuring human agency to nurturing environmental and societal flourishing. These principles are not merely aspirational; they are translated into tangible and binding mandates that shape the conduct of AI creators and users.

This ambitious ethical framework, however, does not come without its conundrums and concessions. It grapples with the dynamic interplay of competing interests and ideals: the equilibrium between AI’s boon and bane, the negotiation between stakeholder rights and obligations, the delicate dance between AI autonomy and human supervision, the reconciliation between market innovation and consumer protection, and the symphony of diverse AI cultures under a unifying regulatory baton. These quandaries do not lend themselves to straightforward resolutions; they demand nuanced and context-sensitive deliberations.

The ethical footprint of the Act will also depend on its reception within the AI community and the wider public sphere. Its legacy will be etched in the collective commitment to trust and responsibility across the AI ecosystem, involving developers, users, consumers, regulators, and policymakers. The vision is a Europe — and indeed, a world — where AI is synonymous with trustworthiness and accountability. This lofty goal transcends legal mandates, reaching into the realm of ethical conviction and societal engagement from every stakeholder.

In an era where artificial intelligence weaves through the fabric of society, the AI Act emerges as a pioneering and comprehensive legislative beacon, guiding AI towards a future that harmonizes technological prowess with human values.

The Act casts a wide net, touching on policy formulation, regulatory architecture, and the ethical lattice of AI applications across and beyond European borders. It stands as a testament to opportunity and foresight, yet it is not without its intricate tapestry of challenges and quandaries. The true measure of its influence lies not in its immediate enactment but in the organic adaptability and robust enforcement as the landscape of AI shifts and expands.

It’s crucial to articulate that this Act doesn’t represent the terminus of regulatory dialogue but inaugurates a protracted era of AI governance. It necessitates periodic refinement in lockstep with the march of innovation and the unveiling of new horizons and prospects. This legislative framework calls for a symphony of complementary endeavors: the investment in research, the enrichment of education, the deepening of public discourse, and the cultivation of global partnerships.

Embarking on this audacious path to an AI domain that is dependable, ethical, and human-centric is a collective venture. It demands a concerted commitment from all corners of the AI sphere — developers, users, policymakers, and citizens alike. It is an invitation to contribute to and bolster this trailblazing expedition into the domain of artificial intelligence — an odyssey that we all are integral to shaping.

 

 

Source: https://intpolicydigest.org/what-the-eu-gets-right-with-its-new-ai-rules/

Anndy Lian is an early blockchain adopter and experienced serial entrepreneur who is known for his work in the government sector. He is a best selling book author- “NFT: From Zero to Hero” and “Blockchain Revolution 2030”.

Currently, he is appointed as the Chief Digital Advisor at Mongolia Productivity Organization, championing national digitization. Prior to his current appointments, he was the Chairman of BigONE Exchange, a global top 30 ranked crypto spot exchange and was also the Advisory Board Member for Hyundai DAC, the blockchain arm of South Korea’s largest car manufacturer Hyundai Motor Group. Lian played a pivotal role as the Blockchain Advisor for Asian Productivity Organisation (APO), an intergovernmental organization committed to improving productivity in the Asia-Pacific region.

An avid supporter of incubating start-ups, Anndy has also been a private investor for the past eight years. With a growth investment mindset, Anndy strategically demonstrates this in the companies he chooses to be involved with. He believes that what he is doing through blockchain technology currently will revolutionise and redefine traditional businesses. He also believes that the blockchain industry has to be “redecentralised”.

j j j

Biden’s plan to close crypto tax loss harvesting loophole is a step in the right direction

Biden’s plan to close crypto tax loss harvesting loophole is a step in the right direction

President Joe Biden’s proposed budget plan has caused a stir in the crypto community due to its intention to terminate tax loss harvesting on crypto transactions. The reactions from the community have been mixed, with some perceiving this as an infringement on the freedom of crypto traders while others view it as a necessary step in regulating the industry and curbing tax evasion.

Tax loss harvesting is a technique used to minimize an individual’s tax liability by deliberately selling an investment at a loss to offset present and/or future capital gains. It reduces the amount of tax one pays for selling profitable investments. Although tax loss harvesting is usually carried out manually towards the end of the year, a systematic approach that identifies these opportunities automatically and acts on them throughout the year can be more effective, even for fixed income or income-generating securities. This approach allows individuals to decrease their tax liability by deducting the losses from their taxable income. However, this strategy has come under fire for being a loophole that enables affluent investors to evade taxes. The termination of tax loss harvesting on crypto transactions is estimated to raise up to $24 billion and reduce the deficit by $3 trillion.

Advocates of this proposition contend that it is an imperative measure to promote fairness and equity among taxpayers by ensuring that everyone contributes their fair share. They argue that the current tax system is biased towards the wealthy, who are able to exploit various tax loopholes and deductions to lower their tax bills. This ultimately results in middle-class and low-income earners being unfairly burdened with a disproportionate share of taxes. This imbalance creates an unjust and unequal tax system.

On the other hand, critics of the Biden budget plan assert that ending tax loss harvesting on crypto transactions is ill-advised as it could discourage innovation and investment in the cryptocurrency industry. They posit that this move could prompt some investors to relocate their assets offshore or to other countries with more lenient tax policies, leading to an exodus of talent and capital from the United States. Moreover, they contend that this change could disproportionately affect small and medium-sized enterprises that depend on cryptocurrency investment and trading for their expansion and growth.

The strategy of tax loss harvesting is commonly utilized by investors in the United States as a means of reducing capital gains taxes on their cryptocurrency investments. However, this approach is not extensively used in other countries due to differences in tax policies specific to cryptocurrency investments. For instance, in Canada, cryptocurrency investments are regarded as commodities and are thus subject to capital gains taxes. Meanwhile, in Australia, profits from cryptocurrency investments are also subject to capital gains taxes, with cryptocurrency considered property for tax purposes.

In the United Kingdom, gains from cryptocurrency investments are taxable under capital gains tax, but it is not possible to use losses to offset other gains. On the other hand, in Germany, cryptocurrency investments held for over a year are exempted from capital gains taxes, but those held for less than a year are taxed at the investor’s personal income tax rate. While other countries like Japan and South Korea have also established tax policies specific to cryptocurrency investments, these policies can differ significantly and may be subject to revision over time.Closing the crypto tax loss harvesting loophole could be viewed as a step in the right direction towards regulating the cryptocurrency industry and ensuring tax fairness. However, it is important to weigh the potential consequences of this policy change.

To summarize, I believe that closing the cryptocurrency tax loss harvesting loophole as proposed in President Biden’s budget plan is not a good policy. It could have negative impacts on small investors, innovation, and the market as a whole, while also not generating significant revenue for the government. Rather than this approach, I suggest exploring alternative policies that promote growth and innovation in the cryptocurrency industry while still ensuring that the government can collect revenue.

By Anndy Lian.

The author is an intergovernmental blockchain expert

Source: https://www.financialexpress.com/blockchain/bidens-plan-to-close-crypto-tax-loss-harvesting-loophole-is-a-step-in-the-right-direction/3013562/

Anndy Lian is an early blockchain adopter and experienced serial entrepreneur who is known for his work in the government sector. He is a best selling book author- “NFT: From Zero to Hero” and “Blockchain Revolution 2030”.

Currently, he is appointed as the Chief Digital Advisor at Mongolia Productivity Organization, championing national digitization. Prior to his current appointments, he was the Chairman of BigONE Exchange, a global top 30 ranked crypto spot exchange and was also the Advisory Board Member for Hyundai DAC, the blockchain arm of South Korea’s largest car manufacturer Hyundai Motor Group. Lian played a pivotal role as the Blockchain Advisor for Asian Productivity Organisation (APO), an intergovernmental organization committed to improving productivity in the Asia-Pacific region.

An avid supporter of incubating start-ups, Anndy has also been a private investor for the past eight years. With a growth investment mindset, Anndy strategically demonstrates this in the companies he chooses to be involved with. He believes that what he is doing through blockchain technology currently will revolutionise and redefine traditional businesses. He also believes that the blockchain industry has to be “redecentralised”.

j j j

Bitcoin’s Taproot Upgrade: A Cautious Step in the Right Direction

Bitcoin’s Taproot Upgrade: A Cautious Step in the Right Direction

Bitcoin developers have spent four years developing and deploying Taproot on its mainnet. So far, there have been no reports of failures, errors, etc., to hinder the upgrade, a clear sign of a stable upgrade.

The purpose of Taproot is to improve the usability and privacy of cryptocurrencies and at lower transaction costs. Earlier this year, 90% of Bitcoin miners approved the Taproot upgrade, delivering another significant programming improvement since the 2017 SegWit upgrade patch, which improved Bitcoin’s scalability. So, what problems can Taproot now solve after going live on 14 November 2021?

 

What is Taproot?

Greg Maxwell, a Bitcoin Core developer, first proposed the Taproot upgrade in January 2018. This was followed up by Pieter Wuille who submitted a code acquisition request in October 2020, and Taproot was incorporated into the Bitcoin Core codebase.

Taproot is a Bitcoin soft fork that improves the Bitcoin script. Its goal is to enhance other relevant indicators of complex transactions while increasing privacy.

By releasing time locks and requiring multiple signatures, transactions on the Bitcoin network can become more complex. Anyone can detect transactions that use complex functions, which necessitate the creation of various transactions, without Taproot. The upgrade may conceal some activities associated with such transactions. So now even when these functions are used in a transaction, they appear to be a single transaction. This is a significant change for Bitcoin users who value their privacy.

Taproot has the ability to make people completely invisible to the Bitcoin scripts that are running. For example, after implementing Taproot, different Bitcoin payment methods look the same, whether they are Lightning Network channel transactions, peer-to-peer transactions, or through complex smart contracts. Only peer-to-peer transactions are visible to the monitors of these transactions. However, it is worth noting that Taproot has not changed the fact that the wallet information of the sender and the ultimate recipient is exposed.

 

Bitcoin’s urgent problems

People’s attitudes toward Bitcoin have shifted in recent years. Many people appear to be more willing to use Bitcoin as a tool to combat inflation, and I believe it indeed has superior properties as a store of value.

On the other hand, millions of Bitcoin owners want to see it used more as an accounting unit and payment method; the other two primary functions are defined as currency. The adoption of Bitcoin as a national currency in El Salvador, the first nation to adopt the digital asset officially, is the clearest example of its potential as a currency to date.

Although Bitcoin is regarded as an elegant solution for person-to-person financial transactions, its coding has remained essentially unchanged since its inception in 2008 by a person or a group of people under the pseudonym of Satoshi Nakamoto. These purposefully simplified programming parameters of Bitcoin limit the number of transactions per second, network bandwidth, and settlement speed, enabling a typical block size regardless of data size, reducing efficiency, and increasing transaction costs.

With the introduction of other blockchains, such as Ethereum and Cardano, which can speed up actual transaction payments and provide more complex services, such as DeFi and NFT, the advantages of Bitcoin are becoming less clear.

 

The improvements Taproot provides for Bitcoin

Taproot is a collection of three separate Bitcoin improvement protocols, technically titled BIP 340, 341, and 342. In addition, they will collaborate to provide the following enhancements to the creator of this digital asset:

⦁ Bitcoin transactions will be bundled together during the verification process, reducing total transaction volume while automatically sharing costs among the bundled user transactions.

⦁ Binding features are used in one of the BIP upgrades to improve transaction privacy.

⦁ The most recent Taproot upgrade improved the features and functions of smart contracts in each Bitcoin block.

Schnorr signatures used by the Taproot upgrade will also reduce the amount of data needed for multi-signature transactions, which are more complicated to process than standard ones. And with lesser data involved, transactions will become more time-efficient, thereby making the transactions cost-efficient.

Although Taproot’s upgrade has accelerated Bitcoin’s progress, it still falls short of smart contracts functionality common to Ethereum, Cardano, and Solana, which have many built-in functions and mechanisms to deal with ‘just in case scenarios.

 

Breathing new life into Bitcoin

Some may question the value of the Taproot upgrade regarding these programming enhancements as little more than a coding ‘catch-up’ by the Bitcoin developer community.

However, a more balanced view is to regard this as “an overwhelmingly positive upgrade to the Bitcoin protocol, but it is not itself enough for investors to get excited.” This is echoed by Anndy Lian, intergovernmental blockchain expert, and Chairman, Asia at BigONE exchange: “Bitcoin Taproot is indeed promising to tech guys like me. But investors’ enthusiasm over the upgrade seems to be neutral as reflected by the price. I am sure over time, everyone can see its impact clearer.” The key to this thesis is that the idea that Bitcoin as a smart contract blockchain is over-exaggerated. What positives there are related to the fact that the upgrade has been accomplished without any technical mishap, and through a successful community consensus process that bodes well for the future. It also lays the foundations for valuable use cases in the future, for example in the growth of payments rails for the metaverse.

 

Original Source: https://hackernoon.com/bitcoins-taproot-upgrade-a-cautious-step-in-the-right-direction

Anndy Lian is an early blockchain adopter and experienced serial entrepreneur who is known for his work in the government sector. He is a best selling book author- “NFT: From Zero to Hero” and “Blockchain Revolution 2030”.

Currently, he is appointed as the Chief Digital Advisor at Mongolia Productivity Organization, championing national digitization. Prior to his current appointments, he was the Chairman of BigONE Exchange, a global top 30 ranked crypto spot exchange and was also the Advisory Board Member for Hyundai DAC, the blockchain arm of South Korea’s largest car manufacturer Hyundai Motor Group. Lian played a pivotal role as the Blockchain Advisor for Asian Productivity Organisation (APO), an intergovernmental organization committed to improving productivity in the Asia-Pacific region.

An avid supporter of incubating start-ups, Anndy has also been a private investor for the past eight years. With a growth investment mindset, Anndy strategically demonstrates this in the companies he chooses to be involved with. He believes that what he is doing through blockchain technology currently will revolutionise and redefine traditional businesses. He also believes that the blockchain industry has to be “redecentralised”.

j j j