doi: 10.62486/latia20237
REVISIÓN
Approach to global regulations around AI
Aproximación a las regulaciones mundiales en torno a la IA
Ginna
Tovar Cardozo1
*
1Universidad de la Amazonia. Florencia, Colombia
Cite as: Tovar Cardozo G. Approach to global regulations around AI. LatIA. 2023; 1:7. https://doi.org/10.62486/latia20237
Submitted: 23-08-2023 Revised: 08-10-2023 Accepted: 14-12-2023 Published: 15-12-2023
Editor: Prof. Dr. Javier
González Argote
ABSTRACT
Regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) varies significantly globally, reflecting different approaches and priorities. These trends underscore the need to balance technological innovation with rights protection and security. The purpose of this article is to examine the main trends and challenges in the regulation of AI, with a comprehensive view of how the governments of the European Union, China and the United States address this complex and crucial issue due to their involvement as great government powers at the economic and social pyolytic level. The study was based on a bibliographic review whose search was intentional towards publications from journals indexed in electronic databases such as Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. The findings demonstrate that the European Union has established a comprehensive framework with the AI Law, imposing specific restrictions and requiring transparency to establish a global standard similar to the GDPR. China, for its part, is transitioning from a fragmented approach to more unified regulation. The introduction of a holistic AI law and the creation of a national AI office indicate an effort to consolidate its regulatory framework, improving consistency and efficiency in risk management. In the United States, regulation remains gradual and decentralized, with initiatives at both the federal and state levels. Although efforts like the AI Bill of Rights are significant, the lack of a unified framework poses coherence and applicability challenges.
Keywords: AI Regulation; AI Law; Transparency; Systemic Risks; Decentralization.
RESUMEN
La regulación de la inteligencia artificial (IA) varía significativamente a nivel mundial, reflejando diferentes enfoques y prioridades. Estas tendencias subrayan la necesidad de equilibrar la innovación tecnológica con la protección de derechos y la seguridad. El presente artículo tiene como finalidad examinar las principales tendencias y desafíos en la regulación de la IA, con una visión comprensiva de cómo los gobiernos de la Unión Europea, China y Estados Unidos, abordan este complejo y crucial tema por su implicación como grandes potencias globales a nivel político económico y social. El estudio se basó en una revisión bibliográfica cuya búsqueda estuvo intencionada hacia publicaciones de revistas indexadas en bases de datos electrónicas como Scopus, Web of Science y Google Scholar. Los hallazgos demostraron que La Unión Europea ha establecido un marco integral con la Ley AI, imponiendo restricciones específicas y exigiendo transparencia para establecer un estándar global similar al GDPR. China, por su parte, está en transición de un enfoque fragmentado a una regulación más unificada. La introducción de una ley de IA holística y la creación de una oficina nacional de IA indican un esfuerzo por consolidar su marco regulatorio, mejorando la coherencia y eficiencia en la gestión de riesgos. En Estados Unidos, la regulación sigue siendo gradual y descentralizada, con iniciativas tanto a nivel federal como estatal. Aunque esfuerzos como el AI Bill of Rights son significativos, la falta de un marco unificado plantea desafíos de coherencia y aplicabilidad.
Palabras clave: Regulación de IA; Ley AI; Transparencia; Riesgos Sistémicos; Descentralización.
INTRODUCTION
Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as one of the most disruptive technologies of the 21st century. It is at the center of multiple transformations in major sectors of society, from healthcare and education to manufacturing and entertainment.(1,2,3,4,5) As its influence grows, so does the need for regulatory frameworks to ensure its safe and ethical development and use.(6,7,8)
The rapid evolution of AI has led to both significant opportunities and risks. On the one hand, AI applications promise unprecedented advances in efficiency and innovativeness.(9) However, concerns arise about data privacy, the transparency of algorithms, and the potential for discriminatory biases in automated systems. Undoubtedly, the present challenges have initiated a global debate on the need for appropriate regulation that balances the promotion of technological innovation with the protection of the rights and safety of individuals.(2,7,10,11)
It has been demonstrated over the last few years that the advance of artificial intelligence has reinforced the spread of cyber attacks, which are considered new forms of interference in the sovereign prerogatives of states and their citizens. They also constitute an extremely destabilizing threat because they impact all areas of society, from the government to the public and private sectors.(12,13,14,15,16,17)
Along the same lines, the efforts of the medical sciences to implement research increasingly focused on technological advances that are expected to have great advantages for this sector in the future are well known. These efforts seek to take advantage of the potential of new technologies to improve medical treatments and procedures, which could have a significant impact on the quality and efficiency of health care.(3,18,19,20)
However, there is a fundamental dilemma surrounding bioethics, a key area for addressing emerging ethical challenges in digital health. According to Zafra et al.(4), artificial intelligence raises concerns about confidentiality and algorithmic systems, as they require high-quality standards, with adequate protection of patient information and attention to equity in access to these technological advances.
Likewise, in the educational field, the implementation of artificial intelligence has proven to be an extremely valuable tool, especially with regard to the personalization of learning for students of any kind.(1,21-25) However, this sector also faces setbacks related to the inappropriate or irresponsible use of these technologies. Their implementation in the educational context must be carried out in an ethical manner and with proper controls in order to avoid biases, privacy violations, or negative impacts on the learning experience of students.(26,27,28,29,30)
One of the main challenges in the regulation of AI is its multifaceted nature and the speed of its development. In this regard, AI systems can operate in a wide variety of contexts, from virtual assistants to autonomous vehicles, each with unique regulatory implications. In addition, the ability of AI to learn and evolve raises questions about responsibility and accountability, especially in cases where algorithms make critical decisions without direct human intervention.(13,31)
Several studies have identified that regulatory responses to AI vary significantly across regions, reflecting differences in political, economic, and cultural priorities.(10,32,33,34,35) The European Union has taken a proactive approach, seeking to establish a comprehensive framework that addresses risks and promotes transparency. In contrast, the United States has opted for a more gradual and decentralized approach, with individual states implementing their regulations. China, on the other hand, follows a reactive model, regulating specific technologies as they emerge, but with plans to unify these efforts under a more balanced and comprehensive national law in the near future.(36,37,38,39,40)
This perspective implies the need to establish an effective regulatory framework for AI, which framework requires collaboration between governments, industry, and civil society. Consequently, these regulations must be flexible enough to adapt to rapid technological evolution but also robust enough to protect users and ensure ethics in the development and use of AI. That said, this article aims to examine the main trends and challenges in the regulation of AI, with a comprehensive view of how the governments of the European Union, China, and the United States are addressing this complex and crucial issue because of their involvement as major global powers at the political, economic and social level.
METHOD
The approach of this article was based on a documentary review since it allowed the collection and analysis of information from the bibliographic sources consulted; it also facilitated the understanding and interpretation of the phenomenon under investigation, in this case, the regulations surrounding AI.(41,42,43)
Initially, a detailed search of academic literature was conducted with special emphasis on scientific articles. The main sources included publications from journals indexed in electronic databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The search patterns used were combinations of the following categories: AI Regulation, China, United States, and European Union.
Subsequently, the selection of the articles was carried out by determining different criteria:
Figure 1. Selection criteria
During the development of this procedure, a rigorous review of the titles and abstracts of the articles identified through the search was carried out. Subsequently, relevant information was extracted from the selected articles based on the objectives of the study, the context of the research, the methodologies employed, the main findings, and the conclusions obtained.
Once the information had been compiled and organized, a comprehensive thematic analysis of the findings was carried out. This analysis focused on identifying common patterns, significant differences, and innovative approaches to AI regulation.
Finally, the procedure concluded with the synthesis of the evidence found, which was distributed according to the particularities of the contexts selected as relevant to the study.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Comprehensive and Transparent Approach in the European Union (EU)
According to the literature reviewed, the European Union (EU) is configured as a unique political and economic association at the global level, composed of 27 European countries whose main objective of this regional bloc is to promote peace, stability, and the welfare of its citizens. Likewise, the results indicate that the EU plays a fundamental role in international governance, exerting a relevant influence in the global sphere.(38,44,45)
This organization has established a comprehensive regulatory framework with the adoption of the IA Act on April 21, 2021. The evidence found highlights it as a pioneering law that imposes specific restrictions on certain uses of artificial intelligence and requires greater transparency on the part of companies. This legislative framework is one of the most ambitious globally, from a perspective based on risk to AI systems and ethics principles.(6,37,46,47)
The AI Act requires companies to thoroughly document the development of their AI models and take responsibility for any harm that may result from systems classified as high-risk. Findings indicate that this regulation includes a requirement to conduct impact assessments to identify and mitigate potential threats prior to deploying such systems.(36,37,47)
Similar to the preceding law, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) constituted a benchmark in data protection by being one of the first entities to regulate AI in such a comprehensive manner. This regulation also includes the creation of a list of prohibited AI systems, such as real-time facial recognition databases in public spaces and emotional recognition technology in work and educational contexts.(2,24,26) In addition, companies developing AI models must be more transparent about how they train their models and must report serious incidents and details about the energy consumption of their systems.(39,48,49)
Although both of these regulations have strong support in the academic literature(6,36,46,46,47,50), it is important to recognize that these legal frameworks do not eliminate the risks faced by humans in the use of artificial intelligence. While these European Union initiatives lay the groundwork for other countries to follow suit and ensure transparency, safety, and accountability in the use of AI globally, gaps need to be addressed to ensure effective and comprehensive regulation of these technologies.(51,52)
Reactive and Fragmented Approach in China
China is seen as a leading power in the field of artificial intelligence. There is full consensus that the Chinese government has made significant investments and implemented deliberate strategies to drive the development and application of AI solutions in a variety of sectors.(53,54,55,56)
In the case of China, a more fragmented approach to AI regulation is contemplated, addressing specific technologies as they emerge. This approach allows for rapid reaction to technological advances and the risks they bring, which is evident in the regulation of algorithmic recommendation services, deepfake technologies, and automated content generators. However, this approach also has limitations, as it needs a unified vision.(57,58,59,60)
This fragmented approach could change with the possible introduction of a more holistic AI law. Accordingly, China’s State Council, the country’s top government body, is proposing a comprehensive AI law on its legislative agenda. Among its purposes is to establish a more unified and comprehensive regulatory framework that would encompass the entire spectrum of AI technology.(55,59,61)
Currently, Chinese AI companies are already subject to numerous regulations. For example, any foundational AI model must be registered with the government prior to its release to the public. This registration allows for tighter control and continuous monitoring of technological developments, ensuring that they adhere to established regulations.(53,55,62)
The evidence found supports China’s desire to maintain control over AI development while ensuring that this technology is used safely and ethically. Conversely, it still requires the transition to a more comprehensive AI law that provides a more coherent and comprehensive regulatory framework.
Gradual and Decentralized Approach in the U.S.
In the United States, regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) is more gradual and decentralized, reflecting the diverse and rapidly evolving nature of this technology. Despite significant initiatives such as the AI Bill of Rights and executive orders for the safe and reliable development of AI, concerns persist about the applicability and effectiveness of these measures.(11,63)
The U.S. Congress continues to debate the appropriate regulatory structure for AI. This debate should focus on how to balance the promotion of innovation in the field of artificial intelligence to maintain competitiveness and technological progress while ensuring that this innovation occurs ethically and responsibly, respecting the individual and collective rights of citizens.(8,59,64,65,66)
Even so, this country has been characterized by the use of AI regulations in its states. Consequently, several states have moved forward with their laws in specific areas. For example, New York has implemented laws that regulate the use of AI in hiring decisions, while California has strengthened its data privacy laws to include specific provisions on AI.(67,68)
At this point, it is possible to assert that this decentralized approach allows states to experiment with different regulatory approaches, which can result in a rich diversity of policies tailored to specific local contexts. However, the lack of a unified federal regulatory framework can lead to inconsistencies in enforcement and compliance challenges for organizations that must adapt to multiple state regulations.
CONCLUSIONS
The study reveals that The European Union has set a significant precedent with the adoption of the AI Law, which imposes specific restrictions and seeks to establish a global standard for the regulation of artificial intelligence, similar to the impact of the GDPR on data protection. On the other hand, China is in the process of transitioning towards a more unified and holistic regulation of AI, with the possible introduction of a law covering the entire technology spectrum and the creation of a national AI bureau to oversee its development, reflecting an effort to consolidate and strengthen its regulatory framework. In the United States, AI regulation remains piecemeal and decentralized, with initiatives at both the federal and state levels presenting challenges in terms of consistency and enforceability despite significant efforts such as the AI Bill of Rights.
REFERENCES
1. Salmerón Moreira YM, Luna Alvarez HE, Murillo Encarnacion WG, Pacheco Gómez VA. El futuro de la Inteligencia Artificial para la educación en las instituciones de Educación Superior. Conrado. 2023;19:27-34. http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?pid=S1990-86442023000400027&script=sci_arttext&tlng=pt
2. García Caicedo SS, Reyes Vélez NP, Solórzano Zambrano ÁA, Quiñonez Godoy NA, Vega Macias JR. Análisis al uso de herramientas de inteligencia artificial para la personalización del aprendizaje en la Educación Superior: Analysis of the use of Artificial Intelligence tools for the personalization of learning in higher education. Revista Científica Multidisciplinar G-nerando. 2024;5(1):573-98. https://doi.org/10.60100/rcmg.v5i1.214
3. Basáez E, Mora J. Salud e inteligencia artificial: ¿cómo hemos evolucionado? Revista Médica Clínica Las Condes. 2022;33(6):556-61. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmclc.2022.11.003
4. Zafra R, Parramon N, Albiol-Perarnau M, Torres O. Análisis de retos y dilemas que deberá afrontar la bioética del siglo xxi, en la era de la salud digital. Atencion Primaria. 2024;56(7):102901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aprim.2024.102901
5. Gonzales-Tito YM, Quintanilla-López L, Pérez-Gamboa AJ. Metaverse and education: a complex space for the next educational revolution. Metaverse Basic and Applied Research. 2023;2:56 https://doi.org/10.56294/mr202356
6. Zapata Muriel FA, Montoya Zapata S, Montoya-Zapata D. Dilemas éticos planteados por el auge de la inteligencia artificial: una mirada desde el transhumanismo. Región Científica. 2024;3(1):2024225. https://doi.org/10.58763/rc2024225
7. Morley J, Machado CCV, Burr C, Cowls J, Joshi I, Taddeo M, et al. The ethics of AI in health care: A mapping review. Social Science & Medicine. 2020;260:113172. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113172
8. Yigitcanlar T, Desouza KC, Butler L, Roozkhosh F. Contributions and Risks of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Building Smarter Cities: Insights from a Systematic Review of the Literature. Energies. 2020;13(6):1473. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13061473
9. Rincon Soto IB, Sanchez Leon NS. Cómo la inteligencia artificial configurará el futuro del metaverso. Una perspectiva cualitativa. Metaverse Basic and Applied Research. 2022;1:12. https://doi.org/10.56294/mr202212
10. Dignam A. Artificial intelligence, tech corporate governance and the public interest regulatory response. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society. 2020;13(1):37-54. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsaa002
11. Clarke R. Regulatory alternatives for AI. Computer Law & Security Review. 2019;35(4):398-409. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2019.04.008
12. Tomczyk Ł, Jáuregui V, Albuquerque- Amato C, Muñoz D, Arteaga M, Sunday-Oyelere S, et al. Are teachers techno-optimists or techno-pessimists? A pilot comparative among teachers in Bolivia, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Finland, Poland, Turkey, and Uruguay. Education and Information Technologies. 2021;26(3):2715-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10380-4
13. Walters R, Novak M. Cyber Secyrity. Cyber Security, Artificial Intelligence, Data Protection & the Law: Springer; 2021.
14. Solar C. Cybersecurity and cyber defence in the emerging democracies. Journal of Cyber Policy. 2020;5(3):392-412. https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2020.1820546
15. Antunes M, Maximiano M, Gomes R, Pinto D. Information Security and Cybersecurity Management: A Case Study with SMEs in Portugal. Journal of Cybersecurity and Privacy. 2021;1(2):219-38. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcp1020012
16. Rawindaran N, Jayal A, Prakash E. Machine Learning Cybersecurity Adoption in Small and Medium Enterprises in Developed Countries. Computers. 2021;10(11):150. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers10110150
17. León-Moreno C, Musitu-Ochoa G, Cañas-Pardo E, Estévez-López E, Callejas-Jerónimo JE. Relationship between School Integration, Psychosocial Adjustment and Cyber-Aggression among Adolescents International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;18(1):108. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010108
18. Sánchez Suárez Y, Pérez Gamboa A, Hernández Nariño A, Díaz-Chieng L, Marqués León M, Pancorbo Sandoval J, et al. Hospital culture and social responsibility: a mixed study of the main lines for its development. Salud. Ciencia Y Tecnología-Serie De Conferencias. 2023;2:451. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.56294/sctconf2023451
19. Gómez-Cano C, Sánchez-Castillo V. Systematic review on Augmented Reality in health education. Gamification and Augmented Reality. 2023;1:28. https://doi.org/10.56294/gr202328
20. Sánchez Suárez Y, Marqués León M, Hernández Nariño A, Suárez Pérez MM. Metodología para el diagnóstico de la gestión de trayectorias de pacientes en hospitales. Región Científica. 2023;2(2):2023115. https://doi.org/10.58763/rc2023115
21. Nahar K, Islam Shova B, Ria T, Binte Rashid H, Saiful Islam A. Mining educational data to predict students performance. Education and Information Technologies. 2021;26(5):6051-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10575-3
22. Shen C-w, Ho J-t. Technology-enhanced learning in higher education: A bibliometric analysis with latent semantic approach. Comput Hum Behav. 2020;104:106177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106177
23. Roman-Acosta D, Rodríguez-Torres E, Baquedano-Montoya MB, López-Zavala L, Pérez-Gamboa AJ. ChatGPT y su uso para perfeccionar la escritura académica en educandos de posgrado. Praxis Pedagógica. 2024;24(36):53-75. https://revistas.uniminuto.edu/index.php/praxis/article/view/3536
24. Cardeño-Portela N, Cardeño-Portela EJ, Bonilla-Blanchar E. Las TIC y la transformación académica en las universidades. Región Científica. 2023;2(2):202370. https://doi.org/10.58763/rc202370
25. Yuce A, Abubakar AM, Ilkan M. Intelligent tutoring systems and learning performance. Online Information Review. 2019;43(4):600-16 https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-11-2017-0340
26. Cisneros Vásquez E, Nevárez Loza, R., Farez Cherrez, A., & Torres Montes, R. . Uso de la inteligencia artificial en la personalización del aprendizaje. Conocimiento Global. 2024 9(1):75-83. http://conocimientoglobal.org/revista/index.php/cglobal/article/view/339
27. Fabriz S, Mendzheritskaya J, Stehle S. Impact of Synchronous and Asynchronous Settings of Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education on Students’ Learning Experience During COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;12 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.733554
28. Azevedo R, Gašević D. Analyzing Multimodal Multichannel Data about Self-Regulated Learning with Advanced Learning Technologies: Issues and Challenges. Computers in Human Behavior. 2019;96:207-10. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.025
29. Gómez-Cano C, Sánchez-Castillo V, Santana-González Y. Factores que inciden en la procrastinación académica de los estudiantes de educación superior en Colombia. Universidad y Sociedad. 2023;15(4):421-31. http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?pid=S2218-36202023000400421&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en
30. Alharthi AD, Spichkova M, Hamilton M. Sustainability requirements for eLearning systems: a systematic literature review and analysis. Requirements Engineering. 2019;24(4):523-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-018-0299-9
31. Kammerer MI, Murgas B. La innovación tecnológica desde un enfoque de dinámica de sistema. Región Científica. 2024;3(1):2024217. https://doi.org/10.58763/rc2024217
32. Djeffal C, Siewert MB, Wurster S. Role of the state and responsibility in governing artificial intelligence: a comparative analysis of AI strategies. Journal of European Public Policy. 2022;29(11):1799-821. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2022.2094987
33. Bareis J, Katzenbach C. Talking AI into Being: The Narratives and Imaginaries of National AI Strategies and Their Performative Politics. Science, Technology, & Human Values. 2021;47(5):855-81. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439211030007
34. Wong P-H. Cultural Differences as Excuses? Human Rights and Cultural Values in Global Ethics and Governance of AI. Philosophy & Technology. 2020;33(4):705-15 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00413-8
35. Gómez Cano CA, Sánchez Castillo, V. Unveiling the Thematic Landscape of Cultural Studies Through Bibliometric Analysis. Community and Interculturality in Dialogue. 2022; 2(34). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.56294/cid202234
36. Floridi L. The European Legislation on AI: a Brief Analysis of its Philosophical Approach. Philosophy & Technology. 2021;34(2):215-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-021-00460-9
37. Chamberlain J. The Risk-Based Approach of the European Union’s Proposed Artificial Intelligence Regulation: Some Comments from a Tort Law Perspective. European Journal of Risk Regulation. 2023;14(1):1-13. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2022.38
38. Akaliyski P. United in diversity? The convergence of cultural values among EU member states and candidates. European Journal of Political Research. 2019;58(2):388-411. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12285
39. Kingston J. Using artificial intelligence to support compliance with the general data protection regulation. Artificial Intelligence and Law. 2017;25(4):429-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-017-9206-9
40. Guatemala-Mariano A, Martínez-Prats G. Capacidades tecnológicas en empresas sociales emergentes: una ruta de impacto social. Región Científica. 2023;2(2):2023111. https://doi.org/10.58763/rc2023111
41. Casasempere-Satorres A, Vercher-Ferrándiz ML. Bibliographic documentary analysis. Getting the most out of the literature review in qualitative research. New Trends in Qualitative Research. 2020;4:247-57. https://doi.org/10.36367/ntqr.4.2020.247-257
42. Snyder H. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research. 2019;104:333-9 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
43. Siddaway AP, Wood AM, Hedges LV. How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology. 2019;70:747-70. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803
44. Rapsikevičius J, Bruneckienė J, Krušinskas R, Lukauskas M. The Impact of Structural Reforms on Sustainable Development Performance: Evidence from European Union Countries. Sustainability. 2022;14(19):12583. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912583
45. Volkov A, Balezentis T, Morkunas M, Streimikiene D. In a Search for Equity: Do Direct Payments under the Common Agricultural Policy Induce Convergence in the European Union? Sustainability. 2019;11(12):3462. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123462
46. Di Noia T, Tintarev N, Fatourou P, Schedl M. Recommender systems under European AI regulations. Commun ACM. 2022;65(4):69–73. https://doi.org/10.1145/3512728
47. Sovrano F, Sapienza S, Palmirani M, Vitali F. Metrics, Explainability and the European AI Act Proposal. J. 2022;5(1):126-38. https://doi.org/doi:10.3390/j5010010
48. Meszaros J, Minari J, Huys I. The future regulation of artificial intelligence systems in healthcare services and medical research in the European Union. Frontiers in Genetics. 2022;13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2022.927721
49. Shastri S, Banakar V, Wasserman M, Kumar A, Chidambaram V. Understanding and benchmarking the impact of GDPR on database systems. Proc VLDB Endow. 2020;13(7):1064–77. https://doi.org/10.14778/3384345.3384354
50. Ebers M. Standardizing AI-The Case of the European Commission’s Proposal for an Artificial Intelligence Act. The Cambridge handbook of artificial intelligence: global perspectives on law and ethics. 2021. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3900378
51. Barkane I. Questioning the EU proposal for an Artificial Intelligence Act: The need for prohibitions and a stricter approach to biometric surveillance 1. Information Polity. 2022;27:147-62. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-211524
52. Hacker P. The European AI liability directives–Critique of a half-hearted approach and lessons for the future. Computer Law & Security Review. 2023;51:105871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105871
53. Franks E, Lee B, Xu H. Report: China’s New AI Regulations. Global Privacy Law Review. 2024:43-9. https://doi.org/10.54648/gplr2024007
54. Wu F, Lu C, Zhu M, Chen H, Zhu J, Yu K, et al. Towards a new generation of artificial intelligence in China. Nature Machine Intelligence. 2020;2(6):312-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-020-0183-4
55. Roberts H, Cowls J, Morley J, Taddeo M, Wang V, Floridi L. The Chinese approach to artificial intelligence: an analysis of policy, ethics, and regulation. AI & SOCIETY. 2021;36(1):59-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00992-2
56. Zhou G, Chu G, Li L, Meng L. The effect of artificial intelligence on China’s labor market. China Economic Journal. 2020;13(1):24-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538963.2019.1681201
57. Zeng J. Artificial intelligence and China’s authoritarian governance. International Affairs. 2020;96(6):1441-59. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiaa172
58. Wang C, Zhang J, Lassi N, Zhang X. Privacy Protection in Using Artificial Intelligence for Healthcare: Chinese Regulation in Comparative Perspective. Healthcare. 2022;10(10):1878. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10101878
59. Shen W, Liu Y. China’s Normative Systems for Responsible AI: From Soft Law to Hard Law. In: Voeneky S, Kellmeyer P, Mueller O, Burgard W, editors. The Cambridge Handbook of Responsible Artificial Intelligence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Cambridge Law Handbooks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2022. p. 150-66.
60. Zeng J. Securitization of Artificial Intelligence in China. The Chinese Journal of International Politics. 2021;14(3):417-45. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/poab005
61. Lucero K. Artificial Intelligence Regulation and China’s Future. Columbia Journal of Asian Law. 2019;33(1):94-171. https://doi.org/10.7916/cjal.v33i1.5454
62. Hu M, Yuan F. Legal regulation of clinical application of artificial intelligence. Zhonghua yi xue za zhi. 2023;103:5-8. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112137-20230217-00227
63. Blumenthal-Barby J. An AI Bill of Rights: Implications for Health Care AI and Machine Learning—A Bioethics Lens. The American Journal of Bioethics. 2023;23(1):4-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2022.2135875
64. Vokinger KN, Gasser U. Regulating AI in medicine in the United States and Europe. Nature Machine Intelligence. 2021;3(9):738-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-021-00386-z
65. Smuha NA. Beyond a human rights-based approach to AI governance: Promise, pitfalls, plea. Philosophy & Technology. 2021;34(Suppl 1):91-104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00403-w
66. Almeida V, Mendes LS, Doneda D. On the development of AI governance frameworks. IEEE Internet Computing. 2023;27(1):70-4. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2022.3186030
67. Schuett J. Risk management in the artificial intelligence act. European Journal of Risk Regulation. 2023:1-19. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2212.03109
68. Rothstein MA, Tovino SA. California takes the lead on data privacy law. Hastings Center Report. 2019;49(5):4-5. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.1042
FINANCING
The authors did not receive funding for the development of this research.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
AUTHORSHIP CONTRIBUTION
Conceptualization: Ginna Tovar Cardozo.
Data curation: Ginna Tovar Cardozo.
Formal analysis: Ginna Tovar Cardozo.
Acquisition of funds: Ginna Tovar Cardozo.
Research: Ginna Tovar Cardozo.
Methodology: Ginna Tovar Cardozo.
Project management: Ginna Tovar Cardozo.
Resources: Ginna Tovar Cardozo.
Software: Ginna Tovar Cardozo.
Supervision: Ginna Tovar Cardozo.
Validation: Ginna Tovar Cardozo.
Display: Ginna Tovar Cardozo.
Drafting - original draft: Ginna Tovar Cardozo.
Drafting - proofreading and editing: Ginna Tovar Cardozo.