The AI literacy point is very interesting. AI literacy is one of those odd obligations: on paper, it makes sense, but in practice it’s sadly often been used to offer training on AI usage principles without knowing which AI systems are actually (going to be) used.
I’m keener on ensuring that any person using an AI system is first encouraged to properly understand the implications and limitations of that AI system. Focussing just on AI in general is not necessarily the best approach, because that is disassociated from capabilities and intended use.
In that context, I could foresee a dual approach:
– Obligation for regulators to work on awareness regarding AI risks and opportunities
– Duty for anyone deploying an AI system to think about (= but not obligation to actually have) usage guidelines
Any thoughts on this?
AIgovernance AIAct
Did this analysis get you thinking? Reach out!
DataLaws.net is entirely open-access, and instead of getting your data in exchange for this content, how about another trade? If this commentary saved you research time or sparked an idea, feel free to invite me over for tea, chai or a hot chocolate next time you are around Brussels or Antwerp - or invite me over to your offices for a chat!
Get in touch ↗ Let's connect on LinkedIn ↗