EU's AI Act Revives Concerns over Covert Communication Techniques in Artificial Intelligence
In a bid to ensure the ethical development and use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), the European Union has proposed a new Act aimed at prohibiting AI systems that use "subliminal techniques." However, this move has sparked a heated debate among experts, with arguments focusing on the scope, clarity, and impact of such a ban.
The proposed AI Act, spearheaded by Commissioner Margrete Vestager, aims to prevent AI systems from materially distorting a person's behavior, causing or likely to cause physical or psychological harm. This includes humanoid robots, browser add-ons, spa treatments, smartwatches, dieting wearables, meditation earpieces, AI-assisted therapy, and more.
However, critics argue that the term "subliminal techniques" and what constitutes "physical or psychological harm" can be vague, leading to uncertainties about what AI techniques are actually banned. This imprecision might hinder innovation as developers could avoid creating beneficial AI applications out of fear of breaching unclear rules.
Another concern is that a ban on subliminal influence techniques could be seen as too sweeping, potentially outlawing a wide range of AI applications that influence behavior in subtle but non-harmful ways. Critics argue that not all subliminal influences are harmful or manipulative and some could be used ethically, for example, to promote beneficial health behaviors.
Monitoring and proving the use of subliminal techniques, especially when harm is psychological and subjective, could be challenging. This creates enforcement difficulties and potentially heavy legal risks for companies, especially smaller businesses and startups facing strict penalties up to millions of euros.
Some argue that a more nuanced approach might better balance protection with innovation. While protecting vulnerable populations is important, blanket prohibitions may ignore context, intent, and safeguards that mitigate risks.
Complying with the AI Act's prohibition of subliminal techniques imposes significant costs and complexity. Organizations must conduct readiness assessments, conformity evaluations, and ongoing monitoring, which may divert resources from innovation and reduce competitiveness.
Despite these concerns, some argue that the regulation of subliminal techniques raises awareness about potential dangers and cautions the development of future technologies. Rostam Niewirth, for instance, believes that this regulation encourages a more thoughtful approach to AI development.
Fears about AI puppetmasters should not confuse EU policymaking. While the goal of preventing harm is widely supported, the AI Act's ban on subliminal techniques is criticized for its potential to be overly broad, difficult to interpret and enforce, and costly, possibly hindering beneficial AI developments in Europe.
References: [1] European Commission. (n.d.). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12622-Artificial-Intelligence-Act-proposal_en
[2] Niewirth, R. (2021). The AI Act and the Regulation of Subliminal Techniques. Retrieved from https://www.datenschutzbeauftragter-info.de/ai-act-und-die-regulierung-von-subliminal-techniken/
[3] European Parliament. (2021). Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2021-0007_EN.html
[4] European Commission. (2021). Digital Services Act. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12434-Digital-Services-Act_en
[5] European Commission. (2021). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a framework for the assessment and authorisation of high-risk pension products. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12623-High-Risk-Pension-Products-proposal_en
- The proposed AI Act, a regulation aimed at prohibiting AI systems with subliminal techniques, raises concerns about its scope, clarity, and potential impact on innovation.
- Critics fear that the ban on subliminal techniques could hinder the development of beneficial AI applications, as the terms used are vague and open to interpretation.
- Another concern is the enforcement of the ban, especially in cases where harm is psychological and subjective, potentially creating heavy legal risks for companies.
- Some argue for a more nuanced approach, suggesting that while protecting vulnerable populations is important, blanket prohibitions could ignore context, intent, and safeguards that mitigate risks.
- The regulation of subliminal techniques is criticized for being overly broad, difficult to interpret and enforce, and costly, potentially hindering beneficial AI developments in Europe, despite its goal of preventing harm.
